m' 


i^  a  ^:2^  i^  <^^  i::a.  "^^ 

OF  THE 
AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 
SAMUEL    AGNE^V, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA. 

(^o 


BX  9947  .C7  183A 

Cooke,  Parsons,  1800-1864. 

Modern  universalism  exposed 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/modernuniversaliOOcook 


\ 


• 


/ 


MODERN    UNIVERSAL [SM 


EXPOSED 


IN  AN  EXAMINATION  OP  THE  WRITINGS  OF 


REV.    WALTER   BALFOUR. 


\^ 


BY   PARSONS  COOKE, 

WARE,  MASS. 


LOWELL: 

PUBLISHED   BY   ASA   RAND, 

18  34. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1834,  by  Asa  Rand, 
the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


Observer  Press. ...Lowell. 


INDEX. 


Introduction. r. 

Chapter  i.     On  the  Immortality   of  the   Soul ;    or  the 

Soul's  Existence  in  the  Intermediate  State,         .         .         15 
Chap.  II.     On  the  subject  of  the  Future  Judgment,  39 

Chap.  hi.     Collateral  Proofs  of  a  Judgment  to  corne,  55 

Chap,  iv  Is  the  Eternal  Life,  promised  to  believers  in 
the  New  Testament,  a  Life  to  be  enjoyed  beyond  the 
grave,  or  only  in  this  world  ?  ....         67 

Chap.  v.  The  signification  of  the  words  Everlasting, 
Eternal,  Forever,  &c.  as  applied   to  the  punishment  of 

the  wicked,  79 

Chap.  vi.     Comments  on  Matthew  xxiv.  and  xxv.  93 

Chap.  vii.  The  place  of  Future  Punishment,  or  the 
meaning  of  the  words  translated   Hell.     The  meaning 

ofSheol, \\2 

Chap.  vjii.    Meaning  of  Hades.    Meaning  of  Tartarus.    120 
Chap.  ix.     The  meaning  of  Gehena,  .  .  136 

Chap.  X.     The  Existence  and  Agency  of  Evil  Spirits,       156 
Chap.  XI.     Credulity  of  the  disciples  of  Balfour,  183 

Chap.  xii.    Miscellaneous  Proofs  of  Future  Punishment,  198 
Chap.  xiii.     Sources  of  Universalism,  .  .  2'24 


A  TABLE  OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS, 

COMMENTED    ON    IN    THIS    TOLl'ME. 


Geivesis. 

PafTc.      —  22. 

123 

3:  1. 

156 

23:  3. 

173 

Deuteronomy. 

—  43. 

24 

32:  22. 

117 

John. 

I.  Chronicles. 

5:  28. 

41 

11:   1. 

157 

8:  44. 

.     176 

Job. 

12:  48. 

43 

1:  6. 

158 

Acts. 

14:    10. 

19 

1:   25. 

29 

Psalms. 

2:  22. 

24 

6:  5. 

19 

23:  8. 

27 

9:  17. 

316 

Romans. 

49:  1.3. 

115 

14:  10. 

43 

109:  4. 

159 

I.  Corinthians. 

115:   IT.       ^ 

119 

5:  5. 

27 

Proverbs. 

II.  Corinthians. 

5;  5. 

117 

5:  6. 

31 

ECCLESIASTES. 

11:  14. 

174 

3:  19. 

26 

5:  11. 

198 

9:  5. 

19 

Philippians, 

12:  7. 

27 

1:  21. 

30 

—  14. 

52 

II.  Thessalonians. 

Isaiah. 

1:  6. 

44 

33:  14. 

89 

—  9. 

92 

Daniel. 

II.  Timothy. 

12:   2,3: 

52,91 

4:  6. 

46 

Matthew. 

Hebrews. 

4:   1. 

167 

32:  23. 

28 

5:  22. 

137 

9.  27. 

48 

10:  28. 

138 

James. 

12:  22. 

165 

3:  6. 

146 

—  23. 

122 

5:  19. 

22 

—  28. 

23 

I.  Peter. 

—  36. 

39 

1:  9. 

22 

16:   IS. 

123 

5:  8. 

175 

—  26. 

20 

II.  Peter. 

17:  1. 

28 

3:  7. 

49 

18:   S. 

91 

2:  4. 

131 

—  9. 

139 

—  17. 

93 

19:  27. 

68 

JUDE. 

23:  15. 

140 

7.  ■ 

93 

—  33. 

141 

13. 

93 

25:  41. 

91 

14. 

50 

Mark. 

Revelations. 

3:  28. 

40 

6:9. 

25 

3:  22. 

92 

7:  9. 

25 

9:  43. 

144 

14:   11. 

94 

Luke. 

19:   1. 

94 

10:  18. 

170 

20:   10. 

94 

13:  IG. 

172 

—  22, 

51 

16:  19. 

29 

22:  8. 

33 

INTRODUCTION. 


The  following  pages  exhibit  the  substance  of  a 
course  of  Lectures,  prepared  and  delivered  by  the 
writer  to  his  own  people.  And  the  reasons  which 
led  him  to  think  it  expedient  to  give  the  lectures 
the  form  of  a  reply  to  Mr.  Balfour,  as  the  jjest 
means  of  counteracting  the  efforts  of  Universalists 
among  the  people  of  his  charge,  are  equally  good  to 
show  that  this  is  the  best  mode  of  meeting  the  wants 
of  the  community  in  general.  With  regard  to  the 
immediate  effect  of  the  lectures,  all  the  expectations 
of  the  writer,  to  say  the  least,  have  been  realized. 
For  offering  the  substance  of  them  in  this  form  to 
the  public,  I  shall  attempt  no  apology.  For  if  the 
contents  of  the  book  do  not  avail  to  carry  my  justi- 
fication to  the  reader,  no  prefatory  apologies  will 
do  it. 

I  have  been  for  some  time  satisfied  that  a  reply  to 
Mr.  Balfour,  which  shall  embrace  all  the  main  prin- 
ciples of  his  theory,  as  published  in  his  first  and  se- 
cond "  Inquiry,"  in  his  "  Essays,"  and  in  his  "  Reply 
to  Stuart,"  is  called  for  by  the  existmg  state  of 
things.  Replies  to  him  in  respect  to  parts  of  his 
system  have  been  published,  while  the  system  has 

1 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

been  in  process  of  development.  But  I  know  of  no 
attempt  that  has  been  made  to  meet  all  the  main 
points  as  they  are  presented  in  the  books  above  al- 
luded to.  The  reasons  on  which  rests  my  opinion 
that  these  books  ought  to  be  systematically  answer- 
ed, are — 

In  the  first  place,  that  they  embody  the  main  and 
fundamental  principles  of  the  most  modern  form  of 
Universalism,  and  contain  the  ablest  and  most  sys- 
tematic statement  of  them,  and  are  most  appealed 
to  by  Universalists  as  a  satisfactory  expression  and 
defence  of  their  views.  Their  tracts,  sermons,  and 
conyersational  arguments,  as  far  as  my  observation 
extends,  are  built  on  the  principles  here  inculcated. 
So  that  a  refutation  of  these  books  subverts  the  foun- 
dation of  the  whole.  Though  comparatively  few  of 
those  who  believe  in  no  punishment  in  the  future 
world,  have  ever  read  these  books,  yet  these  are  their 
oracles,  and  the  fountain  head  of  all  their  opinions 
and  arguments.  These  books  may,  therefore,  be  re- 
garded as,  in  a  sense,  the  sources  of  that  influence 
which  goes  to  spread  the  pestilence  of  Universalism 
in  the  community.  And  an  exposure  of  the  errors 
and  absurdities  which  they  contain,  seems  to  be  the 
most  obvious  method  of  resisting  that  influence. 

In  the  second  place,  Universalism,  as  it  now  ex- 
ists, is  something  very  different  in  respect  to  the 
grounds  on  which  it  chooses  to  rest,  from  what  it  has 
been  in  all  former  ages.  A  few  years  have  devel- 
oped almost  entirely  a  new  system.  Grounds  which 
most  Universalists  before  have  conceded,  are   now 


INTRODUCTION.  Vll 

disputed.  And  those  who  are  well  acquainted  with 
the  arguments  of  Winchester,  Murray,  Chauncey  and 
Huntingdon,  are  no  better  prepared,  on  that  account, 
to  confute  the  Universalists  of  the  present  day.  Mr. 
Balfour  and  his  coadjutors  have  undertaken  what 
their  predecessors  were  too  wise  to  attempt — that  is, 
to  disprove  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  by 
legitimate  and  grammatical  interpretations  of  the 
Bible,  without  the  help  of  the  rationalist  expedient 
of  warping  the  meaning  of  Scripture  in  accommo- 
dation to  the  antecedent  conceits  of  human  reason. 
Though  by  thus  shifting  their  grounds,  they  have 
multiplied  rather  than  diminished  their  difficulties, 
they  have  gained  the  advantage  of  operating  for  a 
while,  in  a  measure  undisturbed  by  opposition.  Min- 
isters and  professing  christians  have  been  slow  to  ac- 
quaint themselves  with  their  new  grounds,  and  hence 
a  great  amount  of  the  resistance  made  to  Universal- 
ism  has  been  misdirected  and  lost.  And  even  now 
very  few  in  this  community,  ministers  or  laymen, 
Universalists  excepted,  have  any  adequate  knowl- 
edge of  the  subject.  Most  have  heard  or  read  in 
newspapers  enough  to  get  the  idea,  that  Mr.  Balfour 
has  put  forth  some  rash  and  absurd  interpretations 
and  criticisms,  in  which  few  have  any  confidence. 
But  I  have  met  with  very  few  who  have  any  accurate 
and  tolerably  extensive  knowledge  of  Balfour's  the- 
ories, and,  of  course,  of  Universalism  as  now  promul- 
gated. Consequently  much  that  is  said,  preached  and 
printed,  fails  of  reaching  the  point, — being  built  on 
principles  which  are  not  admitted.     It  is  important 


Vlll  INTRODUCTION. 

then  that  the  christian  community  should  inform 
themselves  in  relation  to  these  subjects.  This  must 
either  be  done,  or  the  efforts  made  to  spread  Univer- 
salism  be  suffered  to  do  their  worst,  without  any  gen- 
eral effective  resistance.  And  it  is  not  the  least  of  the 
ends  of  this  publication,  to  contribute  to  extend  the 
needed  information  to  that  part  of  the  community 
who  are  not  in  a  way  to  get  it  from  Universalist 
writings. 

But  there  is  a  feeling  in  some  minds  that  doctrines 
and  interpretations  so  absurd,  have  no  need  to  be 
answered.  But  the  question  of  the  expediency  of 
answering  seems  to  depend  more  upon  the  actual 
efficiency,  than  on  the  inherent  plausibility  or  ab- 
surdity of  the  speculations.  And  it  is  a  fact  that 
thousands  in  this  community  are  receiving  as  sacred 
truth  all  these  speculations  crude  as  they  are. 
And  not  the  least  of  the  reasons  in  which  they 
strengthen  themselves  is,  that  no  serious  attempt 
has  been  made  to  refute  them.  There  are  no 
doctrines,  suited  to  the  taste  of  flesh  and  blood, 
which  are  too  absurd  to  be  successfully  promulgat- 
ed, in  this  degenerate  world,  when  dressed  up  in 
plausible  sophistries  and  suffered  to  work  without 
resistance  as  these  have  been.  The  even  greater 
and  more  abundant  absurdities  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic system  are  far  from  falling  by  their  own  weight. 
Controversy  is  needed,  and  is  useful  as  a  means  of 
resisting  those  errors.  It  was  useful  in  resisting 
Universalism  in  the  forms  in  which  it  appeared  in 
past  generations.     And  now  the  mischief  is  abroad 


INTRODUCTION.  IX 

in  a  form  so  far  new  as  to  require  the  battle  to  be 
fought  over  again.  And  I  see  no  way  more  obvious 
or  promising  of  success  than  directly  to  point  out 
and  expose  its  deformities  and  opposition  to  God's 
truth. 

Another  reason  why  these  books  should  be  ans- 
wered, is  found  in  the  rare  opportunity  which  they 
afford,  to  expose  in  a  short  compass,  an  abundance 
of  false  and  ridiculous  reasonings,  to  which  men 
must  needs  resort,  to  sustain  such  doctrines.  The 
last  improvements  of  Universalism  will  be  found, 
when  properly  canvassed,  to  be  more  absurd  than 
any  of  the  preceding,  in  proportion  as  they  pretend 
to  rely  more  exclusively  upon  legitimate  interpreta- 
tions of  the  Bible.  The  deformities  of  the  system 
are  now  more  numerous,  and  more  capable  of  being 
made  to  glnre  on  the  public  eye,  than  ever  before. 
And  we  shall  be  recreant  to  the  cause  of  truth  if  we 
suffer  the  advantage  to  pass  unimproved. 

Still  another  reason  is  found  in  the  peculiar  state 
of  the  public  mind  as  it  stands  related  to  Universal- 
ism. The  Universalism  that  has  been  concealed 
under  the  name  of  Unitarianism,  is  evidently  begin- 
ning to  throw  off  the  disguise — which  circumstance 
is  giving  strength  to  the  Universalists  as  a  sect. 
The  Unitarians  have  sowed  the  seed,  and  the  Uni- 
versalists are  reaping  the  harvest.  This  circum- 
stance has  imparted  new  courage  and  energy  to  the 
latter.  And  no  sect  is  more  untiring  in  its  exer- 
tions, than  they.  So  that  as  the  occasion  for  con- 
troversy with  the  Unitarians,  se^ms  to  be  subsiding, 
1* 


X  INTilODUCTION. 

the  occasion  to  contend  with  the  Universalists  seems 
to  be  increasing.  And  something  needs  to  be  done 
to  awaken  interest  in  the  minds  of  the  Orthodox, 
both  ministers  and  people,  in  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject. And  if  these  efforts  of  mine,  can  contribute 
something  to  this  end,  they  will  not  be  altogether 
useless. 

Another  reason  which  has  inclined  me  to  this  un- 
dertaking, is  that  great  use  is  made  by  Universalists 
of  the  fact  that  little  notice  has  been  taken  by  the 
Orthodox,  of  these  their  standard  writings.  Balfour 
himself  vauntingly  says,  "if  it  is  not  unanswerable, 
we  may  say  it  remains  unanswered."  "Let  my  blood 
be  on  the  head  of  those  who  condemn  me  for  my 
error,  yet  refuse  to  furnish  me  with  scriptural  evi- 
dence that  1  am  wrong."  And  this,  by  the  way,  is  a 
kind  of  reasoning  that  is  peculiarly  taking  with  that 
class  of  mind,  over  which  Universalist  books  have 
influence.  It  is  not  strange  that  those  who  regard 
those  books  as  oracles,  should  consider  the  almost 
silence  of  the  Orthodox  in  relation  to  them,  as  next 
to  demonstration,  that  they  are  unanswerable.  And 
probably  this  one  circumstance  has  contributed 
more  than  any  force  of  argument  in  the  books,  to 
give  them  an  influence.  Many  who  have  never 
been  enlightened  by  Mr.  B.'s  Greek  and  Hebrew 
criticisms,  can  comprehend  the  insinuation,  that  we 
did  not,  because  we  dared  not,  undertake  the  answer. 
Such  are  some  of  the  considerations  that  induced 
me  to  enter  upon  this  work.  To  engage  in  a  con- 
troversy on  such  subjects  and  with  such  opponents, 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

is  no  pleasant  undertaking.  It  is  the  drudgery  of 
the  ministerial  work,  or  rather  tiie  business  of  a 
scavenger,  and  for  that  reason,  probably  others  more 
competent,  who  ought  to  have  undertaken  it,  have 
declined  it.  But  the  work  of  the  scavenger  is  need- 
ful ;  what  the  cause  of  truth  demands,  we  have  no 
right  to  withhold. 

With  regard  to  the  manner  of  performing  the  work 
before  me,  I  shall  make  no  large  professions  of  can- 
dor not  sustained  ;  no  pretence  of  carrying  my  mind 
in  an  equal  balance  through  the  investigation  ;  as 
if  the  question  of  the  truth  or  error  of  Universalism, 
had  never  been  decided  in  my  own  mind.  I  shall 
come  to  the  discussion  as  one  who  is  deeply  con- 
vinced of  the  falsehood  and  pernicious  tendency  of 
the  system,  and  who  feels  competent  to  make  it  ap- 
pear, and  in  whom  it  would  be  hypocrisy  to  pretend 
the  contrary.  Yet  I  shall  labor  clearly  to  under- 
stand and  fairly  to  state  the  views  of  my  opponent, 
and  to  make  use  of  no  argument  which  is  not  in  my 
own  apprehension  valid.  Without  touching  upon 
every  subordinate  topic  introduced  by  Mr.  Balfour, 
I  shall  endeavor  to  leave  nothing  of  importance  un- 
answered. I  intend  to  fix  on  the  strong  points,  so 
as  in  the  shortest  compass  to  make  out  v^hat  shall, 
at  least  virtually,  amount  to  an  answer  to  the 
whole.  And  if  any  thing  be  found,  in  the  books 
under  examination,  to  which  I  have  not  given  a  di- 
rect or  implied  answer,  it  is  sujch  as  I  am  willing 
should  have  all  the  weight  it  can  with  any  mind. 
The  books  which  will  come  under  special  examina- 


Xll  INTRODUCTION.  - 

tion  are,  Balfour's  first  Inquiry,  third  edition,  Bal- 
four's second  Inquiry,  second  edition,  and  Balfour's 
Essays.  I  shall  also  occasionally  notice  Balfour's 
reply  to  Stuart,  and  Whittemore's  work  on  the  Para- 
bles, first  edition.  These  works  abound  in  criti- 
cisms upon  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  of  the  Bible.  But 
I  shall  be  under  no  necessity  of  leading  the  unlearn- 
ed reader  far  beyond  his  depth,  in  my  reply,  and  I 
have  here  no  ambition  to  decorate  rny  pages  with 
such  ornaments.  I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  adapt  the 
style  to  popular  use,  and  yet  leave  no  depths  of  Mr. 
B.'s  learned  criticism  unfathomed. 

The  main  questions  on  which  we  are  at  issue  with 
the  modern  Universalist,  and  which  will  now  come 
under  discussion  in  review  of  Mr.  Balfour's  books, 
are — First,  that  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  or 
whether  souls  exist  in  a  state  of  consciousness  after 
death  and  before  the  resurrection.  Second,  wheth- 
er those  passages  of  the  Bible  which  speak  of  judge- 
ment, condemnation,  damnation,  &c.  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  a  retribution  after  death.  Third,  whether 
those  passages  which  speak  of  everlasting  or  eternal 
life,  mean  a  life  enjoyed  in  this,  or  in  the  future 
world.  And  next,  v.e  shall  inquire  respecting  the 
meaning  of  the  v/ords  everlasting,  eternal,  &c.  when 
applied  to  punishment.  In  the  next  place,  whether 
any  passages  speak  of  a  place  where  punishment  af- 
ter death  is  inflicted.  Next,  examine  Mr.  Balfour's 
attempt  to  disprove  the  existence  and  agency  of  evil 
spirits.  And  then  we  shall  dwell  on  some  miscella- 
neous topics  connected  with  the  discussion. 


INTRODUCTION.  Alll 

And  may  the  God  of  truth,  by  the  Spirit  of  his 
grace,  guide  the  understanding  and  the  heart  of  the 
writer;  that  he  may  be  kept  from  the  exercise  of  all 
feelings  and  purposes  inconsistent  with  the  high 
ends  of  such  a  discussion;  and  be  governed  by  the 
single  desire  to  sustain  the  truth  against  the  assaults 
of  its  enemies,  and  commend  it  to  the  consciences  of 
men  ;  and  may  his  understanding  be  assisted  proper- 
ly to  conceive,  and  present  the  subject,  feeling  him- 
self the  tremendous  weight  of  the  truth  he  incul- 
cates. And  may  the  reader  come  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  question  with  a  mind  willing  to  see  and 
know  the  tiuth,  and  carry  through  it  the  impression 
that  if  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  be  true, 
it  is  tremendously  true,  and  ought  to  take  hold  of 
the  deepest  principles  of  the  mind  and  heart.  • 


^-f 


MODERN    UNIVERSALISM 
EXPOSED. 

CHAPTER    I. 

0?<  THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL  ;     OR    THE  SOUl's   EXIST- 
EiSCE  IN  THE  I>'TERMEDIATE  STATE. 

No  one  unacquainted  with  Universalism,  according-  to  its 
latest  pattern,  would  dream  of  its  being  needful  to  prove  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  in  an  argument  with  those  whose  doc- 
trines provide  an  eternal  salvation  for  all  men.  But  tor  reas- 
ons which  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  Mr.  Balfour  strenuously 
denies  it  In  his  reply  to  Stuart  he  says,  "  It  is  my  honest 
opinion,  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  whether 
limited  or  endless,  depends  on  this, — Is  the  soul  immortal,  and 
is  it  capable  of  suffering  or  enjoyment  in  an  intermediate 
state  ?"  The  reader  then  will  understand,  that  proof  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  and  of  the  fact  of  its  existence  after 
death,  and  before  the  resurrection,  amounts  by  Mr;  B.'s  own 
confession,  to  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment. 

In  considering  this  subject,  I  shall  for  convenience  sake  re- 
verse the  order  of  subjects  which  Mr.  B.  has  pursued  ;  so  that 
I  may  dispose  of  the  less  important  consideration  first.  His 
last  section  is  devoted  to  answering  objections  to  his  denial  of 
of  the  soul's  separate  existence.  And  he  promises  in  the  out- 
set to  confine  himself  to  such  as  are  likely  to  be  urged.  I  am 
willing  that  Mr.  B.  should  enjoy  his  beliefthat  such  objections, 
the  mere  creations  of  his  own  brain,  are  likely  to  be  urged,  but 


16  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  : 

I  am  sure  it  will  not  be,  till  his  opponents  become  strangely 
stultified.  They  are  such  objections  as  I  never  heard  of,  and, 
for  the  most  part,  such  as  have  no  relation  to  the  subject.  If 
Mr.  B.  can  find  amusement  in  building,  and  then  slaying  a  man 
of  straw,  I  would  not  deprive  him  of  it.  But  it  is  no  part  of  a 
fair  and  honest  reasoner,  to  put  into  the  mouths  of  his  oppo- 
nents, arguments  whose  silliness  conveys  an  insult  to  their  un- 
derstandings, and  then  set  himself  gravely  to  their  refutation  ; 
as  if  they  were  the  main  hinge  of  the  controversy.  Surely  he 
has  presumed  much  on  the  ignorance  of  his  readers,  or  fie 
would  not  dare  hold  out  the  pretence,  that  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  was  believed  on  such  grounds. 

Mr.  Balfour's  fourth  section  of  this  essay,  is  occupied  with 
objections,  or  what  he  calls  "  facts  showing  that  the  common 
opinion  respecting  a  man's  soul  and  its  condition  after  death 
cannot  be  true."     These  I  shall  notice  in  their  numerical  order. 

1.  "  When  God  created  man  he  did  not  inform  him  that  he 
had  given  him  an  immortal  soul."  Jlnsiver. — That  he  did  not 
we  have  Mr.  Balfour's  assertion.  And  if  he  did  not,  the  fact 
proves  nothing.  For  he  did  not  inform  him  of  a  thousand  oth- 
er things  which  were  facts  notwithstanding. 

2.  "  God  has  not  imparted  to  Adam's  posterity  immortal 
souls  either  by  gift  or  propagation."  Jlnsiver. — This  rests  on 
Mr.  B.'s  bare  assertion.  It  is  an  assertion  that  man  has  not  an 
immortal  soul  brought  as  a  fact  to  prove  that  he  has  not. 

3.  "  God  has  not,  during  the  past  history  of  man,  ever  inform- 
ed him  that  he  has  given  him  an  immortal  soul  which  shall 
either  suffer  or  enjoy  in  a  future  state."  Answer. — Here  again 
we  have  an  assumption  of  the  very  point  in  dispute  brought  to 
prove  that  point,  and  need  not  occupy  the  time  in  refuting  it. 
The  tirade  against  revivals  of  religion  and  missionary  exertions 
which  is  brought  in  to  illustrate  this  objection,  is  doubtless  a 
genuine  expression  of  the  writer's  feelings,  but  is  of  little  avail 
to  prove  that  men  have  not  immortal  souls. 

4.  "  We  do  not  read  in  scripture  of  any  persons  in  time  of 
sickness,  or  near  prospect  of  death,  expressing  fears  that  their 
souls  after  death  would  go  to  hell,  and  suffer  endless  misery." 


OR  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  17 

Answer. — Should  we  grant  this  assumption,  the  fact  that  God 
had  not  revealed  man's  immortality,  by  recording  in  his  word 
expressions  of  the  dying  to  th?it  effect,  would  be  no  proof  that 
he  has  not  amply  revealed  it  in  other  forms. 

5.  "  We  never  read  in  scripture  of  any  soul's  being  in  heav- 
en or  hell  after  death."  Answer. — Here,  those  who  understand 
the  scriptures  as  they  plainly  read,  will  differ  in  opinion  from 
Mr.  B,,  and  find  it  hard  to  be  convinced  by  such  an  argument. 

6.  "None  of  the  persons  raised  from  the  dead  intimated  that 
their  disembodied  spirits,  Avhile  they  were  dead,  enjoyed  hap- 
piness, suffered  misery,  or  had  conscious  existence  of  any 
kind."  Answer. — That  God  has  not  seen  fit  to  record  in  his 
word  any  surveys  of  the  world  of  spirits  made  by  these  per- 
sons, is  very  true  ;  and  for  a  very  good  reason.  For  if  it  had 
been  consistent  with  his  wisdom  to  lay  out  to  our  view  tho 
scenes  of  that  world,  he  has  more  effectual  means  of  doing  it. 
But  he  chooses  to  deal  with  men  now,  rather  through  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  than  through  those  who  arose  from  the  dead. 
Whether,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  was  possible  for  Lazarus 
to  bring  and  publish  reports  in  this  world  of  scenes  in  a  world 
of  spirits,  is  a  question  which  we  are  not  interested  to  decide. 
For  the  fact  that  we  have  not  testimony  of  a  certain  kind,  does 
not  invalidate  sufficient  testimony  which  Ave  have  of  other 
kinds. 

7.  "  Nothing  is  said  in  Scripture  respecting  the  immortality 
of  men's  souls  or  disembodied  s])irits  at  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead."  8.  "  Nothing  is  said  of  them  after  the  resurrection." 
9.  "The  term  immortal  is  never  joined  in  Scripture  with  the 
terms  soul  or  spirit."  Answer.— Res^Qcimg  the  last  three, 
tliis  general  remark  is  sufficient ;— That  admitting  the  asser- 
tion true,  about  which  different  opinions  will  be  entertained,  as 
we  understand  certain  passages  differently,  it  proves  nothing. 
It  is  only  saying,  because  we  have  not  this  kind  of  evi- 
dence which  we  choose  to  demand,  that  which  we  have,  full  and 
distinct  as  it  is,  is  good  for  nothing.  So  much  for  our  author's 
chapter  of  objections.  If  this  be  all  that  he  has  to  object,  it  will 
surely  require  no  great  amount  of  positive  proof  to  balance  it, 

2 


18  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUjut 

His  third  section  consists  of  a  lal>ored  attempt  to  show  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  souFs  immortality  prevailed  among  the 
heathen  ;  and  that  from  them  it  was  borrowed  by  christians. 
This  section,  of  course,  will  not  require  particular  examina- 
tion. For  the  question  before  us,  is,  whether  it  be  or  be  not  a 
doctrine  of  christian  revelation.  And  this  is  a  question  wholly 
independent  of  the  questions  agitated  in  this  section.  Mr.  B. 
seems  to  reason  as  if  the  fact  that  some  vague  notions  of  the 
soul's  immortality  floated  about  among  the  heathen,  was,  of  it- 
self, enough  to  disprove  the  doctrine  of  its  immortality.  As 
well  might  you  say,  that  because  many  heathen  nations  had 
some  notion  of  a  God,  therefore  the  being  of  a  God  is  not 
taught  in  the  Bible,  but  was  incorporated  into  Christianity 
through  the  influence  of  the  Platonic  philosophers.  I  cheer- 
fully grant,  that  all  the  more  enlightened  heathen  nalions  had 
some  ideas  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  consider  it  a 
strong  proof  that  this  doctrine  was  divinely  communicated  to 
man  in  the  first  ages  of  the  world,  and  by  tradition  diff'used 
over  the  world,  and  a  proof  that  it  is  at  least  intimated  in  the 
law  which  is  written  in  the  hearts  of  men.  But  I  go  not  to  tra- 
dition nor  to  the  law  written  in  the  heart,  when  I  have  before 
me  the  more  sure  word  of  prophecy,  in  which  life  and  immor- 
tality are  brought  to  light.  The  question  is  simply  this.  Is  the 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Bible? 

Mr.  B.'s  third  section  is  occupied  in  putting  down  what  he 
calls  the  doctrine  of  ghosts.  Yes,  the  man,  for  purposes  best 
known  to  himself,  spends  thirteen  pages  of  his  learned  treatise 
in  seriously  arguing  that  apparitions,  and  the  disembodied  spir- 
its of  the  departed  dead,  are  not  wont  to  reveal  themselves  to 
the  bodily  eye  in  this  world.  I  wonder  why  he  did  not  incorpo- 
rate with  his  disproof  of  future  punishment  also,  a  dissertation 
upon  witch-craft,  and  number  off  his  objections  up  to  eighthly, 
against  the  once  popular  notions  of  houses  being  haunted  by 
evil  spirits.  It  would  have  been  equally  instructive  and  perti- 
nent. 

We  have  now  gone  over  all  the  ground  of  this  essay  except 
the  first  section.     This  section  consists  of  an  examination  of 


OR  INTERMEDIATE   STATE.  19 

the  testimony  of  Scripture,  as  to  the  existence  of  the  soul  after 
death.  Here  we  are  happy  to  meet  him,  and  will  give  his 
statements  all  due  consideration.  But  in  the  first  place,  I  must 
lay  aside  as  irrelevant,  his  endless  quotations  brought  to  show 
tlie  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  translated  soul 
or  spirit.  I  have  carefully  run  them  through,  and  can  concdve 
of  no  possible  benefit  to  him  or  his  cause,  gained  by  filling  out 
page  after  page  with  quotations  from  a  concordance,  and  ring- 
ing perpetual  changes  upon  such  euphonious  words,  as  Kesme 
and  JVephish  and  Ruah  and  Pseuche  and  Pneuma,  unless  it 
ccme  from  the  impression  left  on  the  minds  of  those  who  are 
stupid  enough  to  look  upon  Greek  and  Hebrew  words,  as  the 
mystic  symbols  of  incomprehensible  wisdom.  If  an  examina- 
tion of  the  original  words  could  throw  any  light  on  the  subject, 
not  already  in  possession  of  the  English  reader  it  is  well,  oth- 
erwise it  is  the  silliest  pedantry.  The  English  words,  soul  and 
spirit,  have  essentially  the  corresponding  varieties  of  meaning 
found  in  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  words.  And  yet  we  find  no 
difficulty  in  expressing  distinctly,  the  doctrines  which  relate  to 
the  immaterial  spirit  by  means  of  them,  and  no  difficulty  in  de- 
termining when  to  understand  them  of  animal  life,  and  when  of 
the  immortal  soul.  The  numerous  passages  remarked  upon  by 
Mr.  B.  which  have  little  or  no  relation  to  the  subject,  need  not 
be  noticed.  Whatever  advantage  he  gets  from  an  expedient, 
often  resorted  to,  of  refuting  arguments  that  were  never  urged, 
he  is  welcome  to  enjoy.  Such  artifices  show  that  he  is  writing 
for  effect  upon  a  class  of  readers  capable  of  being  influenced 
by  such  means,  and  are  no  compliment  to  his  readers'  under- 
standing. 

I  shall  first  notice  those  passages  on  which  he  relies  to  dis- 
prove the  conscious  existence  of  the  soul  after  dea^h,  and  be^ 
fore  the  resurrection,  and  then  those  which  go  to  prove  the 
doctrine.  Those  of  the  first  class,  are.  Job  14:  10.  Man  giveth 
up  the  ghost  and  where  is  he  7  Psalm  115:  17.  The  dead  praise 
not  the  Lord,  neither  any  that  go  down  into  silence.  Ps.  C:  5. 
For  in  death  there  is  no  remembrance  "of  thee  ;  in  the  grave 
who  shall  give  tl^ee  thanks  ?   Eccl.  9:  5,6,  The  dead  know  not 


20  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  I 

any  thing- — their  love  and  their  hatred  and  their  envy  is  now- 
perished.  And  verse  10.  For  there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor 
knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  the  grave.  In  these  and  two  or  three 
others  of  the  same  import,  is  all  the  force  of  scriptural  argu- 
ment which  he  adduced  to  build  his  conclusion  upon.  And 
there  is  nothing  in  any  of  these  passages,  which  may  not  be 
said  on  the  ground,  that  man  has  both  a  mortal  and  an  immor- 
tal part.  What  is  here  asserted  respects  man's  relations  to  this 
world.  His  existence  among  the  living  in  this  world  is  s;iid  to 
be  done  at  death: — he  cannot  join  in  the  praises  of  God  in  this 
world.  He  cannot  praise  him  as  he  is  here  praised — can  have 
no  part  in  the  enterprises  which  engage  the  hearts  of  his  peo- 
ple here.  In  one  instance  the  context  thus  limits  the  meaning. 
Their  hatred  and  their  envy  is  now  perished,  neither  have  they 
any  more  a  portion  forever  in  anything  that  is  done  under  the  snn. 
TKiis  shows  that  the  whole  assertion  respects  only  man's  rela- 
tions to  what  is  done  under  the  sun, — that  they  know  not  any- 
thing that  is  done  under  the  sun.  But  Mr.  B.  asks,  "Is  it  any 
honor  to  the  sacred  writers  to  make  them  gravely  and  repeated- 
ly tell  us  that  a  dead  carcase  cannot  praise  God  ?"  Does  Mr.  B. 
need  to  be  informed  that  all  writers  have  occasion,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  connecting  an  argument  or  of  aiding  impression,  to 
state  truths  as  obvious  as  that  ?  If  Mr.  B.  can  show  that  such 
statements  are  not  consistent  with  the  scope  of  the  passages  in 
question,  the  showing  will  be  to  the  point.  Besides,  if  it  be  a 
fact  that  man  is  nothing  but  body,  I  might  retort  the  question 
upon  Mr.  B.,  Does  a  Sacred  writer  tell  us  that  a  dead  carcase 
cannot  praise  God  ?  For  there  is  still  less  occasion  to  say  it 
on  his  hypothesis. 

I  come  now  to  notice  those  passages  which  Mr.  Balfour  has 
remarked  upon  for  the  sake  of  showing  that  they  do  not  prove 
the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  the  soul  after  death.  Matt.  16: 
26.  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole  world 
and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  That  the  word  here  rendered  soul, 
is  the  same  that  is  in  many  places,  and  in  the  context,  rendered 
life,  I  admit.  And  I  will  go  further  and  admit,  that  this  text 
was  a  common  proverb  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  that  its  mean- 


OR  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  21 

ing  as  a  proverb  was — what  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  shall 
gain  the  whole  world  at  the  expense  of  his  life  ?     This  is  ad- 
mitting even  more  than  Mr.  B.  has  attempted  to  prove.     And 
yet  it  is  capableof  easy  4)roof,  that  this  common  proverb  is  here 
used  in  a  transferred  sense, — accommodated  to  express  the  loss 
of  eternal  life.     Christ  in  the  context   urges  his  disciples  to 
take  up  the  cross,  and  follow  him  through  every  danger.     And 
tells  them  that  whosoever  will  save»his  life  (by  refusing  to  risk 
it  in  his  cause)  shall  lose  it,  (that  is  shall  lose  eternal  life).    And 
whosoever  shall  lose  his  life,  (natural  life)  for  my  sake  and  the 
gospel's,  the  same  shall  save  it,  (that  is  eternal  life).    That  I  am 
correct  in  here  understanding  eternal  life  as  used  in  antithesis 
with  the  life  of  the  body,  is  plain  from  the  parallel  passage  in 
John,  He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  that  hateth 
his  life  shall  keep  it  unto  life   eternal.     Having  said  this,  the 
Saviour  quotes  the  proverb  and  accommodates  it  to  the  case  in 
hand.   What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and 
lose  his  own  life  ?    Now,  what  life  ?  Not  temporal  life,  for  he 
is  urging  them  to  risk  that  in  his  cause,  but  eternal  life,  the  same 
as  in  the  verse  above.     The  passage  admits  of  no  other  con- 
struction which  does  not  reduce  it  to  nonsense.  If  Mr.  Balfour 
had  been  willing  to  meet  the  argument^  he  would  have  told  us 
how  to  interpret  the  preceeding  verse,  consistently  with  his 
notion, — told  us  how  a  man  can  lose  his  life  as  a  martyr,  and 
gain  the  life  of  his  body  by  the  loss. 

In  the  next  place,  he  adduces  those  passages  which  speak 
of  saving  the  soul,  and  labors  to  show  that  they  mean  no  more 
than  saving  the  life.  Here  follows  his  argument  to  that  point. 
"Many  people  seem  to  think  that  the  term  salvation  can  be  ap- 
plied to  nothing  else,  except  the  salvation  of  the  immortal  soul 
in  the  future  state.  But  when  eight  souls  were  saved  by  water, 
all  will  allow,  eight  lives  or  persons  were  saved.  People  forget 
that  Paul  and  James  wrote  to  believing  Hebrews  just  before 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Our  Lord  had  told  his  disciples 
that  he  who  endured  to  the  end  should  be  saved  from  all  the 
calamities  which  came  upon  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  that  this 
is  called  perdition  needs  no  proof."    Thus  he  makes  the  saving 

2* 


22  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL: 

of  the  soul,  to  be  the  saving  of  the  life  from  sharing  in  Jeru- 
salem's destruction.  Let  us  refer  then  to  some  of  the  instan- 
ces to  test  this  interpretation.  1  Peter  1:  9.  Receiving  the 
end  of  your  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  your  souls.  The  end 
of  the  Christian's  faith,  then,  was  the  salvation  of  their  lives, 
when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  But  the  men  to  whom  Peter 
wrote — strangers  scattered  throughout  Pontus,  Gallatia,  Capa- 
docia,  Asia  and  By  thinia,  were  in  no  danger  of  that  destruction, 
and  had  no  need  of  that  kind  of  salvation.  If  salvation  from 
Jerusalem's  destruction,  were  the  great  end  of  the  Christian's 
faith,  for  what  purpose  was  that  faith  offered  to  other  nations 
than  the  Jews.  If  the  saving  of  the  life  were  the  great  end  of 
embracing  the  Christian  faith,  it  ill-ly  secured  its  end,  for  it 
brought  thousands  to  a  violent  death.  And  then  just  look  at 
the  context,  "  of  which  salvation  (saving  of  the  life)  the  prophets 
have  enquired  and  searched  diligently."  This  saving  of  the 
life  of  the  few  Christians  that  escaped  out  of  Jerusalem,  when 
it  was  destroyed,  is  made  the  object  of  the  prophet's  diligent 
search  spoken  of  as  the  glory  that  should  follow  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  and  that  which  the  angels  desire  to  look  into.  Be- 
lieve it,  who  can. 

Another  instance,  James  5:  19.  Brethren,  if  any  of  you  do 
err  from  the  truth,  and  one  convert  him,  let  him  know,  that  he 
that  converteth  a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a 
soul  from  death  and  hide  a  multitude  of  sins.  Now  how  are  a 
man's  sins  hid  by  escaping  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  If 
death  were  the  extinction  of  being,  and  the  end  of  all  ill  effects 
of  sin,  one  would  think  death  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  to 
be  an  effectual  hiding  of  sin.  And  then  was  it  so  as  this  inter- 
pretation implies,  that  the  whole  world  was  in  such  a  condition 
that,  erring  from  the  truth  exposed  a  man,  let  him  be  where  he 
would,  to  be  buried  in  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem  ?  If  I  can  under- 
stand plain  English,  the  man  will  have  us  believe  it.  Take 
another  view  of  the  matter.  We  are  told  here,  that  salvation 
means  only  the  saving  of  the  life  of  the  body.  And  Mr.  Whit- 
temore,  (on  the  Parables  p.  262,)  says  that  the  happiness  of  the 
future  world  "  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things  be  affected  by  the 


OR  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  23 

conduct  of  men  in  this  life."  Properly  speaking  then,  the 
gaining  of  that  happiness  is  not  salvation,  nor  the  thing  called 
by  that  name  in  the  gospel.  But  then  how  happens  it  that  the 
very  name  which  the  sect  have  chosen  to  adopt,  universal  sal- 
vation, conveys  a  contradiction  to  such  a  principle.  They  ask 
us  to  believe  that  all  the  gospel  says  about  salvation  relates  to 
the  well-being  of  the  body.  But  surely,  this  kind  of  salvation 
is  not  universal ;  men  are  not  all  saved  from  death  and  tempo- 
ral calamity. 

Again,  Math.  10:  28.  Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but 
are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul.  But  rather  fear  him  who  is  able 
to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell.  It  is  not  in  the  power 
of  man  to  frame  an  expression  which  shall  state  more  plainly, 
and  set  more  beyond  the  power  of  evasion,  the  distinction  be- 
tween soul  and  body,  and  the  soul's  capability  of  living  after 
the  death  of  the  body.  But  Mr.  B.  tells  us  men  can  kill  the 
body,  but  cannot  kill  the  life.  As  though  there  were  a  life  left 
to  kill  after  the  body  is  dead,  though  no  soul  or  life  separate 
from  the  body.  Well,  if  the  human  mind  is  capable  of  con- 
ceiving of  such  an  absurdity,  suppose  it  to  be  so— suppose 
there  be  a  life  left  which  none  but  God  can  kill,  after  the  body 
is  dead,  and  yet  man  has  no  conscious  soul  in  danger  of  being 
destroyed— how  is  God  to  be  feared  by  reason  of  his  ability  to 
kill  this  life.  The  body  is  killed,  and  there  is  no  soul  to  kill,— - 
nothing  that  is  capable  of  suffering  or  experiencing  the  pangs 
of  death.  Why  fear  God  on  account  of  his  ability  to  extin- 
guish an  mconscious  entity,  which  by  the  way  he  never  does 
extinguish.  In  his  interpretation  of  this  passage  he  makes  a 
gi-eat  display  of  criticism  or  rather  of  quotations  from  the  Greek 
Testament  and  lexicon,  and  spins  out  his  remarks  to  the  length 
of  twelve  pages  ;  proves  to  us  indisputably,  that  to  kill,  meana 
to  slay,  to  put  to  death,  and  favors  us  with  glosses  of  other 
Avords  equally  enlightening,  as  if  he  intended  to  cover  up  the 
difficulty  by  the  lumber  of  words.  But  any  man  may  read 
over  his  exposition  a  score  of  times,  and  then  find  it  impossible 
to  give  from  it  a  satisfactory  reason,  why  God  is  presented  as 
an  object  of  fear,  because  of  his  ability  to  destroy  the  soul,  af- 


24  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  I 

ter  the  death  of  the  body.  After  you  have  taken  away  my  im- 
mortal soul  and  killed  my  body,  you  may  inflict  what  you 
choose  upon  what  is  letl. 

Again,  Acts  2:  22.  Because  thou  Avilt  not  leave  my  soul  in 
hell,  (Hades,  the  place  of  departed  spirits)  neither  suffer  thine 
holy  one  to  see   corruption.     That  Hades  was,  in  the  current 
opinion  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  supposed  to  be  a  hab- 
itation of  departed  spirits,  is  admitted  by  Mr.  B.     What  idea 
would  this  quotation  from  the  Psalms   as  made  by   Peter,   be 
likely  to  convey  to  the  Je  rvs.     Would  it  not  plainly  teach  them 
that  the  soul  of  Christ  went  into  a  conscious  existence  in  the 
world  of  spirits  ?  Another  evidence  that  the  soul  of  Christ  was 
in  the  world  of  spirits,  is  found  in  what  he  said  to  the  penitent 
thief.     To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise.     This  diffi- 
culty Mr.  B.  escapes  as  usual,  by  the  help  of  Hebrew  roots  ; — 
tells  us  that  the  word  comes  from  a  root,  which  means  to  sep- 
arate, and  therefore  the  word  means  an  enclosure,  and  there- 
fore the    grave  ;  and  that  the  Lord  said  to  the  thief.  To-day 
shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  the  grave.     But  here  he  has  involved 
himself  in  many  difficulties  to  escape  one.  In  the  first  place,  the 
word  is  never  used  by  any  writers,  sacred  or  profane,  in  the 
sense  of  the  grave.     In  the  next  place,  he  makes  Christ's  reply 
to  the  prayer  of  the  thief  to  be,  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me 
in  the  grave,  which  was   a  cold  consolation  to  a  dying  man. 
And  then,  it  happens  the  body  of  the  thief  found  no  grave.     If 
paradise  means  the  grave,  it  is  strange  that  the  seventy  who 
must  have  understood  the  meaning  of  the  word   quite  as  well 
as  Mr.  B.,  have  used  it  for  the  word  to  translate  the  garden  of 
Eden.     And  if  Paradise  means  the  grave,   when   Paul  was 
caught  up  into  paradise,  he  was  caught  up  into  the  grave,  and 
that,  a  state  of  complete  unconsciousness,  and  there  he  heard 
unspeakable  words.     I  conclude,  after  such  specimens  of  Mr. 
B.'s  philology,  my  readers  will  find  no  hindrance  from  it  to  be- 
lieving that  the  penitent  thief  went  that  day  into  a  state  of  hap- 
piness with  Christ.      And  that  Christ's  soul,   living   and  con- 
scious, was  in  the  world  of  spirits  while  his  body  was  in  the 
grave. 


OR  INTERMEDIATE   STATE.  25 

Again,  Rev.  6:  9,  10,  11.  I  saw  under  the  altar,  the  souls  of 
them  that  were  slain  for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testimony 
which  they  held.  And  they  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  saying ; 
How  long  O  Lord,  holy  and  true,  dost  thou  not  avenge  our 
blood,  on  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth.  And  white  robes  were 
given  unto  every  one  of  them,  &c.  Now  suppose  it  be  said 
that  John  did  not  intend  to  represent  the  vision  of  these  souls, 
as  of  realities,  still  if  a  separate  soul  were  what  never  had  ex- 
istence, it  could  not  be  the  basis  even  of  a  figurative  represen- 
tation. The  pale  horse  seen  as  the  symbol  of  great  destruction 
overspreading  the  world,  might  be  no  proof  that  a  real  horse 
was  there,  yet  the  use  of  such  a  symbol  pre-supposed  the  exis- 
tence of  such  a  creature  as  a  horse.  So  if  the  vision  of  these 
souls  was  only  a  symbol  of  the  result  of  persecutions  and  mar- 
tyrdoms, about  to  take  place,  yet  the  use  of  the  symbol  pre- 
supposed the  existence  of  separate  souls,  as  the  basis  of  the 
figure.  But  you  shall  hear  Mr.  B.'s  explanation.  He  says  the 
souls  of  those  martyrs,  are  only  the  blood  calling  for  vengeance. 
We  have  it  then,  that  the  blood  cries,  how  long  dost  thou  not 
avenge  our  blood — that  is,  the  blood's  blood.  And  then  white 
robes  are  given  unto  every  one  of  them, — that  is,  to  all  the 
blood.  That  this  is  a  vision  of  transactions  before  the  end  of 
time,  appears  from  the  fact,  that  these  martyrs  are  commanded 
to  wait  till  more  should  be  slain.  That  they  were  persons  is 
evident  from  their  having  been  slain.  They  were  glorified 
persons,  for  white  robes  were  given  them  ;  that  they  were  sep- 
arate spirits,  is  asserted.  Should  it  be  said,  the  whole  repre- 
sentation is  symbolical — then  the  question  is,  Are  not  real  ex- 
istences used  as  the  symbol,  as  much  as  in  the  preceding  case 
of  the  pale  horse  ?  And  what  does  the  symbol  teach,  if  not  that 
the  souls  of  martyrs,  even  before  their  fellow  servants  are  slain, 
are  elevated  to  glory  an^'  clothed  with  white  robes  ? 

Again  Rev.  7:  9.  After  this  I  beheld,  and  lo  a  great  mul- 
titude, which  no  man  can  number,  of  all  nations,  and  kin- 
dreds, and  people,  and  tongues,  stood  before  the  throne,  and 
before  the  Lam.b,  clothed  with  white  robes,  and  palms  in  their 
hands.  John  asks  who  these  persons  are,  and  the  angel  informs 


26  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  I 

him  that  they  are  those  who  have  come  out  of  great  tribulation, 
and  have  washed  their  ro^es  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  these  washed  in  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb,  were  men,  were  conscious  and  happy  be- 
ings. And  it  were  easy  to  show,  from  the  context,  that  this 
was  a  vision  to  set  forth  things  that  take  place  before  the  end 
of  the  world.  Upon  this  Mr.  B.  has  not  remarked,  and  I  Mall 
not  dwell  upon  it. 

Eccl.  3:  19—21.  For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of  men 
befalleth  the  beasts,  even  one  thing  befalleth  them,  as  one  di- 
eth,  so  dieth  the  other.  Yea,  they  have  all  one  breath,  so  that 
man  hath  no  pre-eminence  above  the  beast;  for  all  is  vanity. 
All  go  unto  one  place,  all  are  of  the  dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust 
again.  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  a  man  that  gocth  upward, 
or  the  spirit  of  a  beast  that  goeth  downward?  This  passage 
Mr.  B.  labors  to  bring  in  support  of  his  theory  of  the  annihila- 
tion of  the  soul.  He  says,  "words  could  hardly  be  selected 
which  would  declare  more  explicitly  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  man  and  beast."  Now  if  he  means  by  this,  that  there 
is  in  710  respect  any  dijfference  between  the  destinies  of  men  and 
beasts,  I  would  ask  him  if  the  beasts  experience  also  a  univer- 
sal salvation.  But  if  this  is  spoken  only  of  the  mortal  part  of 
man,  if  in  one  respect  man  resembles  the  beast,  and  in  another 
he  possesses  a  capability  of  eternal  glory,  and  if  this  in  the 
passage  above  is  affirmed  only  to  set  forth  the  va,nity  of  man 
as  mortal,  what  becomes  of  the  inference  which  he  has  drawn. ^ 
That  the  writer  here  distinguishes  between  the  animal  and  the 
immortal  part  of  man,  is  seen  in  that  he  assumes  that  the  spirit 
of  a  man  goelh  upivard,  while,  the  spirit  of  the  beast  goeth 
downward.  The  matter  then  may  be  reduced  to  this  dilemma. 
The  writer  was  either  speaking  of  the  end  of  a  man's  mortal 
state  only,  not  designing  to  intimate  that  he  had  no  immortal 
part,  or  he  was  speaking  of  the  whole  nature  and  destiny  of 
man,  and  asserting  that  in  no  respect  had  man  in  his  destiny  a 
pre-eminence  over  the  beasts.  And  Mr.  B.  may  choose  which 
he  will  have  it. 

Again,  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  separate  existence  is  taught 


OR  INTERMEDIATE   STATE.  27 

in  Eccl.  12.  7.  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it 
was,  and  the  spirit  shall  return  to  God  who  gave  it.  Here  the 
very  point  in  question  is  directly  asserted.  After  the  mortal 
part  returns  to  its  original  dust,  there  is  a  spirit  to  return  to 
God  : — to  return  to  him  to  be  judged  by  him  and  appointed  to 
happiness  or  woe,  according  to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body. 
Mr.  B.  answers  by  saying,  what  is  here  asserted  is  asserted  of 
all  men,  and  if  it  is  asserted  that  any  go  to  God,  to  he  happy  at 
death,  it  is  asserted  of  all.  True,  but  that  phraze,  "to  be 
happy  "  is  one  of  his  own  adding.  They  go  to  God  for  him  to 
determine  the  sequel ;  we  are  left  with  the  simple  fact  that 
they  go  to  God.  But  Mr.  B.  says  that  the  soul  goes  to  the 
condition  in  which  it  was  before  it  was  created.  And  as  that 
condition  was  nothingness,  so  must  this  be.  And  this,  he  tells 
us,  this  nothing  gone  to  God,  is  what  is  meant  by  our  life  being 
"hid  with  Christ  in  God,"  spoken  of  by  the  apostle.  The  apos- 
tle,would  hardly  thank  him  for  putting  such  a  meaning  upon 
his  words.  But  no  interpretation  can  make  the  passage  more 
plain  or  forcible  than  it  is.  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the 
earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  shall  return  to  God  who  gave  it. 

I  need  not  detain  the  reader  with  a  detail  of  that  numerous 
class  of  passages  which  speak  of  giving  up  the  ghost,  of  the 
spirit's  leaving  the  body,  or  returning  to  it  again.  They  all  im- 
ply the  existence  of  a  spirit  separate  from  the  body.  But  as 
we  have  sufficient  proofs  more  direct,  to  occupy  all  the  space 
we  have  for  this  discussion,  I  shall  not  insist  on  them. 

Again,  the  distinction  is  made  between  flesh  and  spirit,  and 
the  spirit  is  represented  as  that  which  needs  to  be  saved  in 
this, — 1  Cor.  5:  5.  To  deliver  such  a  one  to  satan  for  the  de- 
struction of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Again,  Acts.  23:  8.  Forthe  Sadducees  say 
there  is  no  resurrection,  neither  angel  nor  spirit,  but  the  Phar- 
isees confess  both.  Here  we  are  told  that  the  Pharisees  be- 
lieve in  the  existence  of  spirits,  and  in  the  verse  above,  Paul 
says,  I  am  a  Pharisee.  That  is,  we  are  first  told  that  Paul  was 
a  Pharisee,  and  then  told  what  a  Pharisee  believes,  which  is 
equivalent  to  telling  us  that  Paul  believed  what  it  is  said  the 


28  IMMORTALITY    OF    THE     SOUL  I 

Pharisees  do.  Besides,  here  is  proof  that  the  word  pneuma  is 
used  for  spirit  in  the  sense  of  departed  spirit ;  for  here  it  can 
mean  nothing  else.  But  Mr.  B.  asks,  Why  does  Paul  single 
out  the  article  of  the  resurrection,  if  he  agreed  with  the  Phar- 
isees in  other  parts  of  their  creed.  I  answer:  for  the  plain 
reason  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was  the  main  doc- 
trine of  the  system  for  the  preaching  of  which  he  was  then  cal- 
led to  account. 

Hebrews  12:  23.  We  have  come  unto — the  spirits  of  just 
men  made  perfect.  Mr.  B.  says  this  passage  means,  "We  are 
come  to  the  persons  of  the  just  perfected."  Well,  but  how 
come  to  the  persons  ?  "They  were  come  to  the  better  things 
without  which  those  persons  were  not  perfected."  But  this  is 
a  strange  way  of  coming  to  persons.  Paul  never  wrote  such 
nonsense  as  this.  But  without  any  controversy  about  what  is 
meant  by  coming  unto  the  spirits,  &c.,  none  will  question  that 
heaven  is  here  named  as  the  home  of  the  angels  and  of  the 
church  of  the  first  born,  and  of  the  spirits  (or  persons  if  you 
choose  it)  of  just  men  made  perfect.  There  is  then  the  same 
reason  for  believing  that  the  spirits  of  just  men  are  now  in 
heaven,  as  there  is  for  believing  that  the  angels,  or  God  the 
judge  of  all,  is  there. 

Matt.  17:  1 — 3.  And  after  six  days,  Jesus  taketh  with  him 
Peter,  and  James  and  John  his  brother,  and  bringeth  them  up 
into  a  high  mountain  apart,  and  was  transfigured  before  them ; 
and  his  face  did  shine  as  the  sun,  and  his  raiment  was  white  as 
the  light,  and  behold,  there  appeared  unto  them  Moses  and 
Elias.  Is  it  a  question  whether  these  persons  were  here  in 
body  or  spirit?  Moses  died  and  was  buried  in  the  land  of  Mo- 
ab,  whatever  may  be  pretended  concerning  Elijah.  And  his 
body  could  not  be  there.  Mr.  Balfour's  reply  here,  is  three- 
fold^— First,  that  if  Moses  and  Elijah  came  from  heaven,  "it 
is  certain  their  conversation  did  not  turn  on  any  thing  they 
had  seen,  heard  or  enjoyed  there."  But  how  does  he  know 
that.?  Has  he  a  report  of  all  they  said  ?  And  suppose  it  did  not, 
does  that  prove  that  they  did  not  come  from  heaven  ?  Second- 
ly, he  says  that  if  any  went  to  heaven  before  Christ,  why  is  he 


OR  INTERMEDIATE   STATE.  29 

called  our  forerunner?  I  answer,  he  might  be  our  forerunner 
and  not  that  of  Elijah.  And  he  is  that  of  Elijah  in  that  he 
opened  the  way  into  the  holy  of  holies  for  all  sinners  by  his 
blood,  and  so  in  the  order  of  nature,  though  not  in  the  order  of 
time,  went  before.  In  the  third  place,  he  says  it  is  expressly 
called  a  vision,  and  ought  not  to  be  interpreted  literally.  If 
he  means  by  this  that  the  persons  seen  were  not  the  real  per- 
sons of  Moses  and  Elijah,  and  the  voice  heard  was  not  a  real 
voice,  he  assumes  what  the  word  will  not  justify.  The  word 
here  translated  vision,  means  the  thing  seen,  or  the  sight. 
The  same  word  is  used  when  it  is  said.  When  Moses  saw  it 
he  wondered  at  the  sight, — but  that  was  the  sight  of  a  real  ob- 
ject. Besides,  Peter  represents  these  things  as  real,  and  no 
mere  phantasm.  2  Peter  1:  16 — 18.  For  we  have  not  followed 
cunningly  devised  fables,  when  we  made  known  unto  you  the 
power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  loere  eye  wit- 
nesses of  his  majesUj.  For  he  received  from  God  the  Father, 
honor  and  glory  when  there  came  such  a  voica  to  him  from 
the  excellent  glory,  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased;  and  this  voice  which  came  from  heaven  ive  heard 
when  we  were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount.  Was  it  not  then 
in  Peter's  estimation  a  real  scene,  was  not  the  eloud  a  real 
cloud,  the  voice  a  real  voice,  and  the  persons  real  persons,  the 
real  Moses  and  tiie  real  Elijah  ?  And  does  not  this  prove  that 
the  spirit  of  Moses  had  existence  after  his  body  was  dead  ? 

Again,  in  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  Luke 
16:  19.  it  is  asserted  that  the  rich  man  died,  and  in  hell  he 
lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torment.  And  Lazarus  died  and 
was  carried  by  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom.  The  conclusion 
is  unavoidable  that  their  souls  were  in  another  world.  Do  you 
say  the  whole  representation  is  a  parable  ?  What  if  it  be,  has 
it  therefore  not  a  meaning  plain  and  intelligible  ?  And  what 
truth  does  it  inculcate  if  not  that  souls  go  into  a  state  of  hap- 
piness or  misery  after  death  ?  As  this  parable  will  come  under 
more  particular  consideration  hereafter,  I  shall  not  now  notice 
any  of  Mr.  B.'s  remarks  upon  it. 

Acts  1:  25.  That  he  may  take  part  of  this  ministry  and  apos- 
3 


30  INMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL  : 

tleship  from  which  Judas  by  transgression  fell.  To  evade  the 
force  of  this  passage,  Mr.  Balfour  chooses  to  give  it  a  forced 
translation,  as  follows, — "Thou,  Lord,  who  knowest  the  hearts 
of  all,  show  whether  of  these  two  thou  hast  chosen  to  take  part 
of  this  ministry  and  apostleship  from  which  Judas  is  by  trans- 
gression fallen,  that  he  [that  is  the  apostle  elect]  may  enter 
into  his  [that  is  Judas']  place."  But  this  translation  is  achieved 
by  leaving  out  a  word  in  the  Greek, the  word  translated  "own," 
which  shows  that  "he,"'  and  "his"  both  have  the  same  ante- 
cedent, that  is  Judas.  If  we  may  leave  out  words  in  the  trans- 
lation, and  violate  the  rules  of  grammar,  we  can  expunge  any 
truth  from  the  Bible.  Mr.  B.  asks  with  an  air  of  triumph, 
"  Did  Luke  or  any  one  else  know  it  to  be  a  fact  that  Judas 
went  to  hell  ?"  I  answer,  Luke  by  inspiration  records  in  this 
case  tlie  prayers  of  the  apostles,  who  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  said  that  Judas  fell,  that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place. 
Can  the  authenticity  of  the  matter  be  doubted?  Mr.  B.'s  quibble 
about  hell's  being  regarded  by  some  as  a  state  and  not  a  place, 
may  be  answered  by  saying,  that  some  also  regard  it  as  both  a 
state  and  a  place. 

Phil.  1:  2L  For  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain;  but 
if  I  live  in  the  flesh  this  is  the  fruit  of  my  labour,  yet  what  I 
should  choose  I  wot  not.  For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two, 
having  a  desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ,  which  is  far  bet- 
ter. Here  the  fact  that  the  saints  enter  upon  a  state  of  enjoy- 
ment, immediately  after  death,  is  repeatedly  implied.  It  is  im- 
plied, in  that  to  die  is  gain — in  that  he  had  a  desire  to  depart — 
in  that  to  depart  was  to  be  with  Christ,  and  a  being  with  him  far 
better  than  any  state  of  being  or  action  here.  But  Mr.  B.  says, 
to  be  with  another,  does  not  imply  being  in  a  state  of  conscious 
existence  with  him.  But  pray  how  can  a  man  be  with  another, 
when  he  has  no  being  at  all ;  when  he  has  no  more  existence 
than  he  had  before  he  was  created  ?  The  difficulty  found  in 
this  being  with  Christ,  being  far  better  than  life  in  this  world, 
is  met  by  Mr.  B.  by  asserting  that  it  was  far  better  for  Paul  to 
go  into  a  state  of  non-existence,  than  to  live  in  the  service  of 
Christ.     But  are  we  called  upon  to  digest  such  a  preposterous 


OR  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  31 

idea  as  this?  Are  the  religious  enjoyments  of  a  Paul  no  better 
than  blank  nothingness  ?  And  yet  you  tell  us  that  all  the  de- 
scriptions of  the  happiness  and  happy  consequences  of  a  relig- 
ious life  in  the  Bible,  are  to  be  understood  of  a  happiness  en- 
joyed on  this  side  of  the  grave  !  And  you  tell  us  that  this  hap- 
piness of  the  believer  on  this  side  the  grave  is  enough  to  au- 
thorise one  to  forego  all  worldly  advantages,  to  obtain  it.  And 
now  you  tell  us  that  non-existence  is  far  better  than  even  the 
believer's  enjoyment.  The  conclusion  from  the  premises  is, 
that  non-existence  is  preferable  to  all  religious,  and  of  course 
to  all  worldly  enjoyments.  If  this  be  so.  Job  had  real  occasion 
to  execrate  the  day  wherein  he  was  born,  and  to  lament  that  he 
was  not  forever  left  to  enjoy  that  blessed  non-existence.  Away 
with  such  nonsense  !  When  Paul  says,  for  me  to  live  is  Christ, 
he  declares  the  present  life  to  be  a  source  of  high  enjoyment. 
The  expression  is  condensed,  and  one  of  exceeding  power. 
•'It  is  everything  to  me  that  Christ  is;"  and  who  will  believe 
that  he  meant  to  say  that  annihilation  was  better  to  him  tlian 
such  a  combination  of  sources  of  enjoyment  found  in  Christ  and 
his  service  ? 

2  Cor.  5:  6.  Therefore,  we  are  always  confident,  knowing 
that  whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent  from  the 
Lord.  We  are  confident,  I  say,  and  willing  rather  to  be  ab- 
sent from  the  body  and  present  with  the  Lord.  One  would 
think  this  passage  deserved  a  place  in  an  examination  of  all 
the  texts  which  relate  to  the  separate  existence  of  the  soul. 
But  Mr.  B.  has  chosen  to  leave  it  out  of  that  examination,  and 
has  introduced  in  another  treatise,  that  upon  the  resurrection, 
and  there  incidentally  alludes  to  its  bearings  on  this  subject. 
What  his  purpose  in  so  doing  was,  it  does  not  become  rne  to 
say.  The  effect  is,  whether  purposed  or  not,  to  prevent  one  of 
the  most  direct  proofs  from  having  its  influence  on  the  mind, 
in  connexion  with  the  rest.  Here  the  possibility  of  being  ab- 
sent from  the  body,  and  yet  in  a  state  of  happiness  is  so  fully 
implied,  that  in  spite  of  any  perversions  and  explanations,  it 
would  have  influence  on  the  most  prejudiced  mind,  and  if  the 
separation  of  this  passage  from  the  rest  was  intended  for  that 


32  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  : 

purpose,  it  was  the  result  of  some  skill  in  the  tactics  of  sophis- 
try.  Ifamancan  be  absent  from  the  body  and  be  present 
with  the  Lord,  and  that  presence  with  the  Lord  be  a  desirable 
state,  what  more  is  wanted  to  prove  the  conscious  existence  of 
separate  spirits  ?  But  Mr.  Balfour's  labour  at  evasion  here  con- 
sists in  saying-  that  "In  Scripture  style  the  writers  often  speak 
of  things  as  present,  yea  as  past,  the  more  strongly  to  express 
their  certainty."  But  how  he  would  hi  this  principle  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  this  text  he  has  not  told  us.  So  we  will  attempt 
the  lab 0  for  him.  So  we  read  it.  We  are  always  confident, 
knowing  that  while  we  are  sure  of  being  in  the  body,  we  are 
not  certain  of  being  with  the  Lord.  We  are  confident  I  say, 
and  willing  rather  to  be  uncertain  as  respects  being  in  the 
body,  and  certain  of  being  with  the  Lord.  Thus  it  will  some- 
times happen  that  Scripture  language  brings  out  the  truth  with 
such  clearness,  that  the  man  who  is  determined  by  hook  or  by 
crook  to  cover  it,  is  sure  of  getting  into  a  condition  so  pitiable. 
Again,  you  will  notice  that  the  denial  of  the  existence  of  the 
separate  spirits  of  men,  was  one  of  the  features  of  the  Saddu- 
cean  system.  Our  Saviour  encountered  the  Sadducees  on  this 
very  point.  And  his  argument  to  prove  that  the  spirits  of  dead 
saints  were  now  living  with  God,  was  that  God  said  to  Moses, 
I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Ja- 
cob, and  this  was  said  hundreds  of  years  after  these  patriarchs 
were  dead.  And  God  was  not  the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the 
living.  Therefore,  these  patriarchs  though  dead  in  body,  were 
living  in  spirit  at  that  time.  We  ask  no  one  to  concede  that 
this  argument  is  conclusive;  for  being  used  by  the  Saviour,  it 
has  his  authority  added  to  its  intrinsic  force.  But  Mr.  B.  says 
the  Sadducees'  question  had  no  reference  to  the  soul  in  a  dis- 
embodied state,  because  they  did  not  believe  the  soul  existed 
in  such  a  state.  But  Mr.  B.  is  the  first  of  men,  women  or  child- 
ren, who  understood  the  Sadducees  to  have  been  gravely  and 
honestly  asking  for  the  sake  of  information,  "  whose  wife  shall 
she  be  of  the  seven."  Docs  the  man  need  to  be  informed  that 
the  question  was  suggested  as  a  difficulty  in  the  way  of  believ- 
ing that  souls  existed  in  the  future  world  ?    But  waiving  this 


OR  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  33 

point:  as  well  might  Mr.  B.  say,  that  their  question  had  no  ref- 
erence to  the  resurrection,  because  the  Sadducees  did  not  be- 
lieve in  a  resurrection.  But  suppose  we  admit  the  question 
had  no  reference  to  the  disembodied  state,  every  one  can  see 
that  Christ's  argument  proves  the  disembodied  state,  whether 
he  intended  it  or  not,  even  with  more  force  than  it  does  the 
resurrection.  If  it  proved  anything  i1  proved  that  Abraham  was 
living  at  the  time  referred  to,  and  it  proves  the  resurrection  on- 
ly as  an  inference  from  that  conclusion.  I  wonder  not  that  Mr. 
B.  has  omitted  this  passage  from  its  place  in  the  discussion, 
and  noticed  it  only  in  another  treatise. 

Again,  the  translation  of  Enoch  is  proof  in  point.  Paul  says, 
by  faith  Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should  not  see  death, 
and  was  not  found,  because  God  had  translated  him.  Now  to 
translate  does  not  mean  to  annihilate,  but  to  transfer  to  anoth- 
er state  of  being.  He  went  to  dwell  with  God,  for  God  took 
him.  Now,  he  went  into  the  spiritual  world  with  a  body,  or 
without  one.  But  to  go  into  the  spiritual  world  with  a  body, 
is  an  absurdity  in  terms.  His  translation  must  have  amounted 
to  laying  aside  the  body,  though  without  the  pangs  of  death. 
Or  should  we  suppose  that  the  change  consisted  in  an  assump- 
tion of  the  glorified  body,  such  as  the  saints  will  receive  after 
the  resurrection,  his  condition  in  heaven  must  have  been 
lonely  on  the  Universalist  hypothesis — on  the  ground  that  there 
are  no  angels  and  no  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect  for  him 
to  consort  with  there. 

One  more  passage.  Rev.  22:  8,  9.  And  I  John  saw  these 
things  and  heard  them  ;  and  when  I  had  heard  and  seen,  I  fell 
down  to  worship  before  the  feet  of  the  angel  which  showed  me 
these  things.  Then  saith  he  unto  me,  See  thou  do  it  not.  For 
I  am  thy  fellow  servant  and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and 
of  them  that  keep  the  sayings  of  this  book:  worship  God.  The 
angel  or  messenger  who  was  the  instrumejit  of  communicating 
the  Revelations  to  John,  Avas  then  one  of  the  prophets,  not 
one  of  course  then  living  upon  the  earth  \  butit  was  one  whose 
spirit  had  departed.  That  John  thought  it  to  be  a  real  person, 
is  evident  from  his  attempt  to  worship  him  :  and  if  John  could 
3* 


34  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  : 

not  know  whether  it  was  real,  how  can  we  ?  But  if  here  was 
one  of  God's  prophets  acting  after  deatli  as  God's  messenger  to 
communicate  revelations  through  John  to  the  world,  it  can  no 
longer  be  pretended  that  all  the  dead  are  in  a  state  of  uncon- 
sciousness and  annihilation.  But  if  this  was  one  of  the  spirits 
of  just  men  made  perfect,  it  appears  that  the  saints  even  before 
the  resurrection,  are  invested  with  a  glory  of  which  we  have 
little  conception.  Here  v/as  one  of  John's  fellow  servants,  in- 
vested with  such  a  majesty  and  glory,  that  John  could  not  know 
him  to  be  such,  but  mistook  him  for  God  himself.  Truly,  we 
know  not  what  we  shall  be  ! 

I  have  now  dwelt  at  sufficient  length  upon  the  Scripture 
proof  of  the  soul's  conscious  existence  in  the  intermediate 
state.  And  I  flatter  myself  that  I  have  succeeded  as  far  as  I 
have  gone  to  disabuse  it  of  Mr.  B.'s  perversions.  And  I  may 
safely  challenge  any  one  to  tell  what  point  of  doctrine  is  capa- 
ble of  more  clear,  and  abundant  proof  from  Scripture  than  this. 
But  suppose  the  soul  is  annihilated  at  death  and  restored  again 
at  the  resurrection,  it  does  not  lead  the  way  to  the  Universal- 
ist  conclusion.  If  the  frame-work  of  the  human  mind  be  so 
dissolved  that  when  it  is  rebuilt  at  the  resurrection,  it  is  not  es- 
sentially the  same  mind,  bearing  the  traces  of  the  cultivation 
and  of  the  injuries  it  received  in  this  world,  the  theory  of  a 
temporary  annihilation  does  not  evade  the  necessity  of  the  sin- 
ner's suffering  in  the  world  to  come.  For  if  the  mind  after  the 
resurrection  be  in  its  essential  properties,  in  its  moral  charac- 
ter and  in  its  affections  towards  the  government  of  God,  what 
it  was  when  it  left  the  world,  then  he  must  needs  be  the  same 
guilty,  wretched  being  that  he  was  before — with  the  same  de- 
filed conscience,  the  same  memory  burdened  with  the  history 
of  a  life  of  sin,  the  same  sense  of  guilt,  the  same  lusts  and  pas- 
sions, the  same  everything  that  is  essential  to  make  an  intelli- 
gent and  moral  being  wretched.  He  will  have  the  elements  of 
an  eternal  hell  in  his  own  bosom.  He  will  be  just  what  he 
would  if  he  should  pass  into  the  eternal  world  without  passing 
through  the  pangs  of  death.  Select  then  from  the  sinks  of 
wickedness,  one  of  the  raaturest  specimens  of  moral  corrup- 


OR  INTERMEDIATE  STATE.  35 

tion,  and  suppose  that  man  to  be  carried,  without  conversion, 
without  a  cleansing  of  his  conscience  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  into 
the  eternal  world.  Place  him  in  the  full  light  of  that  world,  in 
a  light  which  makes  him  see  his  own  character  in  all  its  defor- 
mity, in  the  revealed  presence  of  a  holy  God, — let  his  con- 
sciousness make  report  of  all  the  workings  of  his  base  and 
wretched  passions  ;  let  the  fire  of  his  every  lust  send  out  a 
tiame  ;  let  his  sighing  for  incongruous  and  unattainable  gratifi- 
cations go  on  ;  let  memory  hold  up  the  blazing  record  of  all  past 
misdeeds  ;  let  remorse,  quickened  by  the  new  light  which  floods 
the  soul,  commence  its  play,  and  he  will  want  no  fire  nor  brim- 
stone to  make  a  hell ! 

But  take  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma.  Suppose  the  change 
which  takes  place  at  the  resurrection  be  such  as  to  divest  the 
mind  of  all  the  consequences  of  sin,  imparting,  as  Mr.  Whit- 
temore  expresses  it,  "  a  new  constitution,"  which  of  its  own 
nature  originates  the  happiness  of  heaven,  independent  of 
character  and  conduct  exhibited  in  this  world.  In  that  case, 
we  shall  not  have  the  same  consciousness,  or  the  same  mem- 
ory, or  tlie  same  of  anything  whicii  forms  the  basis  of  moral 
responsibility.  If  we  are  moral  beings,  then  in  the  world  to 
come  we  shall  have  totally  another  moral  nature.  As  it  re- 
spects our  connexion  with  our  former  selves,  we  shall  be  total- 
ly other  beings.  The  souls  that  will. enjoy  that  universal  sal- 
vation which  Mr.  B.  is  expecting,  Avill  be  other  souls  and  not 
ours.  That  universal  salvation  would  be  no  salvation  for  us, 
and  would  interest  us  no  more  than  it  ivould  tlie  inhabitants  of 
the  moon.  All  the  consolation  such  a  hope  of  salvation  would 
bring,  would  be  in  the  expectation  that  after  we  ourselves  had 
been  annihilated  some  thousands  of  years,  God  will  create  in 
the  stead  of  us,  some  happy  beings  who,  by  the  constitution 
of  their  natures,  will  be  fitted  for  endless  life,  while  in  their 
happiness  we  shall  have  no  interest. 

It  is  either  one  thing  or  the  other.  The  soul  of  the  sinner 
will  wake  in  the  future  world  with  the  same  consciousness  and 
affections  Avhich  it  had  before,  or  it  will  not.  If  it  does,  it  must 
needs  suffer  all  the  effects  of  unpardoned  sin,  bear  its  load  of 


36  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL  : 

conscious  guilt,  and  feel  the  wretched  out -goings  of  deprav- 
ed affections.  If  it  does  not,  the  happiness  of  the  soul  after 
the  resurrection  is  not  our  happiness,  but  of  some  beings  then 
newly  created.  It  must  be  confessed  the  theory,  that  all 
that  men  enjoy  in  the  future  world  is  the  result  of  the  new 
constitution  to  be  had  after  the  resurrection,  has  great  merits 
as  well  as  great  defects.  It  solves  a  most  difficult  problem  by 
showing  how  the  most  wicked  and  abominable  of  men,  dying  in 
their  sins,  become  fit  to  fill  a  seat  of  equal  honor,  and  wear  a 
crown  of  equal  splendor  in  heaven,  with  Paul  and  John  and  all 
those  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy, — how  the  most  wick- 
ed and  impenitent  may  be  free  from  all  embarrassment  and 
danger,  resulting  from  sin  as  soon  as  they  have  done  with  life, — 
how  one  touch  of  death's  dark  brush,  can  cancel  all  offences 
against  God  and  man,  and  rectify  all  moral  disorders, — how 
one  may  indulge  every  desire  lawful  and  forbidden,  form  any 
character,  in  all  the  grades  of  difference  between  Gabriel  and 
Satan,  may  fill  out  life  even  to  the  last  moments  with  whatev- 
er is  most  offensive  to  God,  and  then  feel  no  alarms,  no  re- 
morse, no  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment,  on  his  dying  bed. 
Nay,  if  he  has  been  the  veriest  profligate,  and  combined  in  his 
character  every  feature  of  baseness  and  crime,  that  pollutes 
God's  image,  he  may  notwithstanding  look  forward  in  the  pros- 
pect of  death,  with  a  hope  full  of  immortality,  and  say  with 
Paul  I  have  fought  the  good  fight,  I  have  finished  my  course, 
I  have  kept  the  faith,  and  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of 
righteousness  which  the  Lord  the  righteous  Judge  shall  give 
me  at  that  day,  and  not  to  me  only  but  to  all  who  either  love 
or  hate  his  appearing, — and  may  be  sure  of  being  welcomed 
on  his  entrance  to  heaven,  by  a  well  done,  good  and  faithful 
servant,  thou  hast  been  fiithful  over  a  few  things,  I  will  make 
thee  ruler  over  many  things,  enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord. 
Be  not  startled  ;  grant  the  premises  and  the  conclusion  is  sound. 
Grant  that  a  man  is  annihilated  both  body  and  soul  at  death, 
and  that  when  he  is  restored  to  being  again,  he  comes  forth 
with  a  new  constitution,  which  bears  no  impress  of  past  ex- 
perience, or  of  injuries  inflicted  in  the  present  life,  that  he 


OR  INTERMEDIATE   STATE.  37 

comes  forth  in  all  important  respects  wholly  a  new  and  anoth- 
er, and  yet  wholly  the  same  being,  and  is  made  happy  by  a  di- 
rect stroke  of  the  power  that  makes  him  over,  and  the  conclu- 
sion is  good. 

But  then  the  theory  has  as  great  defects  to  balance  its  ad- 
vantages. And  they  may  all  be  resolved  into  this,  that  it  is 
absurdity  itself,  and  a  mind  needs  to  be  strangely  warped  to  be 
able  to  receive  it.  The  whole  scope  of  the  Bible  stands  in  the 
face  of  it.  That  the  conduct  of  this  life  touches  the  well  being 
in  the  future  life,  is  the  very  basis  of  revelation,  and  that  with- 
out which  the  Bible  becomes  a  useless  toy.  All  unperverted 
reason  and  conscience  is  against  it.  Speculate  as  much  and 
wildly  as  we  may,  we  have  one  of  God's  monitors  within,  pro- 
claiming guilt  and  a  judgment  to  come,  and  now  and  then  the 
monition  will  be  heard  ;  the  majesty  of  God's  law,  the  thun- 
ders of  eternal  justice  will  breakout.  And  then  the  theory, 
beautiful  and  advantageous  as  it  may  be,  is  a  prostrate  fabric. 
In  short,  its  great  defect  is,  it  is  built  on  delusion,  and  serves  a 
man  no  longer  than  the  delusion  lasts. 

If  the  scripture  testimony  which  has  been  adduced,  has  been 
properly  apprehended,  every  mind  will  carry  into  the  eternal 
world,  just  that  moral  and  spiritual  character  which  it  had  at 
the  moment  of  death — death  is  but  the  separation  of  soul  and 
body.  All  attributes  of  mind  that  are  of  a  moral  nature — the 
moral  affections,  the  heart  as  it  stands  related  to  God,  his  law, 
his  gospel,  his  kingdom,  the  character  of  holiness,  or  sin  then 
possessed,  remain  unmodified  by  the  passage  from  this  to  the 
world  of  spirits.  We  have  no  warrant  to  believe  that  he  who 
dies  impenitent,  a  blasphemer,  a  murderer,  a  hater  of  God — he 
who  dies  with  an  infinite  pressure  of  guilt  upon  him,  in  the 
consciousness  of  having  abused  mercy,  and  worse  than  wast- 
ed probation's  golden  hours,  Avill  be  in  a  different  condition 
after  death.  And  if  eternity  is  to  let  all  its  light  blaze  upon 
this  character,  and  this  experience  with  Avhich  the  impenitent 
die,  giving  keenness  to  all  the  perceptions,  a  thousand  fold  vig- 
or and  rapidity  to  all  the  movements  of  the  mind,  then  all  the 
fears  that  ever  agitated  a  sinner's  dying  bed,  are  to  be  more 


38  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  : 

than  authenticated.  Then  too  are  all  the  brightest  anticipa- 
tions of  the  dying  saint,  to  be  immeasurably  surpassed,  by  the 
reality.  And  death's  dark  passage  is  to  the  believer,  a  lumin- 
ous and  gilded  porch  to  mansions  of  eternal  blessedness. 


CHAPTER    II. 


ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

Mr.  Balfour's  second  Essay  is  upon  the  resurrection  of 
tiie  dead.  This  so  far  as  it  is  occupied  with  the  proofs  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  and  of  mankind,  I  shall  have  no  occa- 
sion to  controvert.  And  so  far  as  it  consists  of  a  development 
of  his  views  of  the  nature  and  consequences  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, it  will  find  a  sufiicient  answer  in  my  remarks  upon  the 
other  topics.  If  I  mistake  not,  the  chapter  now  before  us,  will 
afford  a  virtual  refutation  of  his  notion  of  a  resurrection,  which 
goes  to  obliterate  all  the  consequences,  and  supersede  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  judgment  to  come.  In  Mr.  B.'s  third  Essay,  he 
enters  upon  an  examination  of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, wherever  occur  the  v/ords  judge,  judgment,  condemned, 
condemnation,  damned,  damnation,  &c.  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  none  of  them  give  us  reason  to  expect  a  judg- 
ment or  punishment  after  death.  In  this  he  has  taken  upon 
him  a  great  work,  and  we  shall  see  how  he  has  accomplished 
it.  That  some  of  these  words  often  are  applied  to  judgments  in 
this  life  is  obvious.  But  the  burden  of  proof  which  he  has  as- 
sumed to  himself  is,  that  in  no  instance,  are  they  applied  to  a 
judgment  in  the  future  world.  My  task  then  will  not  be  to 
follow  him  through,  and  weigh  the  correctness  or  incorrectness 
of  every  interpretation  which  he  has  given;  but  to  show  that 
there  is  at  least  one  instance,  where  the  word  is  used  of  judo-- 
ment  after  death. 

The  first  passage  which  T  shall  notice,  is  Matt.  12:  36.  But 
I  say  unto  you,  that  every  idle  word  which  men  speak,  they 
shall  give  account  thereof  in  tlie  day  of  judgment.  Mr.  B.'s 
reason  for  believing  that  the  day  of  judgment  here  spoken  of 
is  in  this  world,  is  in  substance  this :  That  Nineveh  and  the 


40  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

queen  of  the  South  are  predicted  to  rise  in  judgment  with  this 
generation,  and  of  course  it  must  be  while  they  were  living-  up- 
on the  earth.  And  he  asserts  that  they  rose  in  judgment  only  by 
their  history  and  conduct  given  in  the  Old  Testament.  Bu|  1 
see  no  necessity  of  its  being  in  this  world,  because  of  its  being 
with  that  generation  ;  that  generation  and  all  others  will  have 
a  place  in  the  future  world.  And  then  Christ  says  they  shall 
rise,  not  they  have  risen,  as  should  be  said  if  the  record  of 
their  past  conduct  were  all  the  testimony  they  were  to  bring 
for  condemnation.  Then  the  proposition  in  the  text  happens 
to  be  general.  Every  idle  word  that  men,  (that  is  any  man,  not 
the  men  of  that  generation)  shall  speak,  &.c.  The  accounta- 
bility here  is  made  as  broad  as  the  race  of  man.  And  this  day 
of  judgment  is  a  day  when  every  man  will  give  account  of 
every  idle  word.  But  such  a  day  as  that  did  not  occur  in  that 
generation.  This  rendering  the  account  of  every  idle  word, 
spoken  by  every  man,  cannot  take  place  in  one  day  unless  that 
day  be  such  a  day  of  general  judgment  as  we  are  expecting  af- 
ter death.  And  then  the  phrase,  give  account,  forbids  Mr. 
B.'s  application  of  the  passage  to  Jerusalem's  destruction,  being 
never  used  for  the  experience  of  punishment,  but  always  for  a 
formal  rendering  of  an  account  of  a  trust  or  responsibility, 
as  you  may  see  by  the  following  quotation  of  all  the  other  in- 
stances in  which  it  occurs.  Give  an  account  of  thy  steward- 
ship. Whereby  we  may  give  account  of  this  day's  concourse. 
For  they  watch  for  your  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account. 
Who  give  account  to  him  that  is  ready  to  judge  the  quick  and 
the  dead.  Is  it  not  then  an  unauthorized  interpretation  to  ap- 
ply this  giving  of  account  to  anything  Avhich  took  place  at  the 
time  of  Jerusalem's  destruction. 

Mark  3:  28,  29.  Verily  I  say  unto  you  all  sins  shall  be  for- 
given unto  the  sons  of  men  and  blasphemies  wherewithsoever 
they  shall  blaspheme  ;  but  he  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal 
damnation.  Mr.  B.'s  labor  upon  this  passage  is  chiefly  employ- 
ed in  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  word  rendered  eternal,  does 
not  mean  eternal,  but  that  it  should  be  rendered  judgment  of 


THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT.  41 

Ihe  age,  referring  to  the  coming  national  judgment.     But  it 
was  not  the  Je^  only  which  were  exposed  to  commit  the  un- 
pardonable sin  here  spoken  of.     Allowing  Mr.  B.'s  view  of  the 
nature  of  this  sin  to  be  correct— that  it  consists  in  resisting  the 
evidence  of  miracles,  the  Gentiles  to  whom  the  gospeFwas 
published  by  the  apostles,  were  equally  exposed  with  Jews  to 
the  commission  of  the  sin.     And  John  in  his  general  epistle 
warns  his  readers  against  this  sin  unto  death,  as  though  the 
Gentiles  were  liable  to  commit  it.     But  they  could  not  be  thus 
liable  on  Mr.  B.'s  theory.     He  has  a  summary  way  of  set- 
tling the  question ;  that  is  by  roundly  asserting  that  no  one  un- 
derstands this  as  affecting  the  eternal  condition  of  the  individu- 
al.    This  is  a  favorite  argument  of  his,  but  requires  but  a  short 
answer.     In  short,  if  this  passage  does  not  express  the  idea  of 
punishment  in  the  future  world,  what  language  can  express  it? 
It  is  said  he  hath  never  forgiveness,  and,  lest  this  should  not  ex- 
press the  whole,  it  is  added,  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation. 
And  forever  to  prevent  this  being  applied  to  any  limited  pun- 
ishment, the  never  having  forgiveness  is  prefixed.      Can  lan- 
guage be  better  guarded  against  perversion  ?    What  Mr.  B. 
gains  by  his  criticism  upon  the  phrase  "  world  to  come,"  I  am' 
unable  to  discover.     For  it  is  well  known  that  "  the   world  to 
come,"  according  to  Jewish  notions  was  a  world  without  end, 
extending  from  the  commencement  of  the  Messiah's  reign  on 
through  eternity.     And  to  say  that  a  sin  should  never  find  for- 
giveness neither  in  this  age,  nor  in  the  age  to  come,  is  equiva- 
lent to  saying  that  it  never  shall  to  all  eternity.     In  this  vieM7 
ofthe  subject  the  rendering  "age  to  come"  is  preferable  to 
"world  to  come,"  strictly  (jonfined  to  the  eternal  state.     Be- 
cause, the  implied  possibility  ofthe  forgiveness  of  other  sins  in 
the  age  to  come,  is  something  very  different  from  the  possibil. 
ity  of  forgiveness  in  \.\ie  future  state,   in  that  the  age  to  come 
includes  the  period  of  probation  here  as  well  as  of  a  retribu- 
tion there. 

John  5:  28.  Marvel  not  at  this  for  the  hour  is  coming  in 
which  all  that  are  in  their  graves  shall  Jiear  his  voice  and  shall 
come  forth,  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of 
4 


42  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the  resurrection  of  dam- 
nation. The  points  which  Mr.  B.  here  mainly  labors  to  make 
out,  I  admit — viz.  that  the  phrase,  "the  hour  is  coming,"  is  some- 
times used  of  other  times  than  the  resurrection — that  the  word 
resurrection  is  sometimes  applied  to  other  things  than  a  literal 
resurrection  of  the  body — that  men  are  sometimes  figuratively 
said  to  be  in  their  graves  and  to  be  brought  out  of  their  graves 
as  expressive  of  moral  conditions  and  changes.  But  it  is  one 
thing  to  show  that  words  are  sometimes  used  in  such  a  figura- 
tive sense  and  another  to  show  that  in  this  time  they  are  so  us- 
ed. Having  shown  that  these  words  sometimes  mean  so  and 
so,  and  having  assumed  without  a  shadow  of  proof  they  have 
that  meaning  here,  he  then  assumes  further  that  to  come  forth 
to  a  resurrection  of  life,  means  to  come  into  the  happiness  en- 
joyed by  the  believer  in  this  world,  and  to  come  forth  unto  the 
resurrection  of  damnation  means  the  experience  of  the  tempo- 
ral judgment,  which  carae  upon  the  unbelieving  Jews  at  the 
close  of  their  dispensation.  Now  suppose  we  admit  these 
assumptions,  then  the  passage  will  read — The  hour  is  coming 
when  all  the  spiritually  dead  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  come  to 
spiritual  life.  They  of  the  spiritually  dead  which  have  done 
good  while  spiritually  dead,  shall  come  forth  to  spiritual  life. 
And  they  of  the  spiritually  dead  who  have  done  evil,  shall  be 
raised  from  their  spiritual  death,  and  be  made  spiritually  alive, 
and  find  that  resurrection  one  of  damnation.  There  is  Mr.  B.'s 
interpretation  fairly  put  together,  and  its  comely  proportions 
challenge  inspection.  And  then  it  seems  that  all  who  are  in 
their  graves,  that  is  spiritually  dead,  in  all  parts  of  the  world 
and  in  all  ages,  are  to  come  forth — are  to  experience  this  mor- 
al resurrection,  and  be  made  to  believe,  and  then  those  of  them 
Avho  did  not  do  good  before  they  believed,  were  to  have  their 
belief  one  of  damnation,  and  one  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Now  where  is  the  sober  man  who  can  digest  all  this 
farrago,  and  call  it  fair  interpretation  of  the  word  of  God ! 

The  idea  that  a  moral  resurrection  is  here  intended,  is  also 
excluded  by  the  context.  A  moral  resurrection  is  spoken  of 
in  a  verse  above,  and  distinguished  from  this  resurrection.  Af- 


THE  FUTURE   JUDGMENT.  43 

ter  speaking  of  the  moral  resurrection,  and  speaking  of  the 
power  of  the  Son  to  effect  it,  it  is  added,  marvel  not  at  this, 
namely,  that  the  Son  will  raise  men  to  a  spiritual  life,  for  even 
the  men  that  are  in  their  graves,  are  to  hear  his  voice  and  come 
forth.  But  if  moral  resurrection  be  meant  in  both  cases,  then 
we  have  the  speaker  saying.  There  is  to  be  a  moral  resurrec- 
tion, but  marvel  not  at  this,  for  there  is  to  be  a  moral  resurrec- 
tion. Mr.  B.'s  suggestion  that  "  in  all  the  passages  universal- 
ly allowed  to  treat  of  the  resurrection,  not  a  word  is  said  about 
coming  forth  to  a  resurrection  of  damnation,"  amounts  to  this, 
and  no  more, — that  when  a  passage  happens  to  say  a  word 
about  such  a  coming  forth,  Mr.  B.  is  sure  not  to  allow,  that  it 
treats  of  the  resurrection,  ajid  then  it  ceases  to  be  universally 
allowed. 

John  12:  48.  He  that  rejecteth  me  and  receiveth  not  my 
words  hath  one  that  judgeth  him.  The  word  that  I  have  spo- 
ken, the  same  shall  judge  him  at  the  last  day.  That  the  last 
day  here  applies  to  the  end  of  the  world  Mr.  B.  admits,  but 
evades  the  truth  by  saying,  that  the  word  rendered  "judge" 
means  to  convince  or  to  persuade  ;  making  Christ  say — he 
came  not  to  convince  or  persuade,  when  every  one  knows  that 
a  great  part  of  his  life  was  employed  in  convincing-  and  per- 
suading. Besides  the  contradiction  to  fact,  there  is  another 
difficulty  :  the  word  never  is  used  in  the  sense  which  he  gives 
it.  Out  of  the  more  than  seventy  times  in  which  it  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  he  cannot  produce  one  where  it  has  that 
sense.  He  doubtless  would  have  done  it  if  he  could.  The 
truth  then  remains  unimpaired,  that  every  one  who  rejects 
Christ  hath  one  that  judgeth  him  at  the  last  day. 

Rom.  14:  10.  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgement 
seat  of  Christ.  1  Cor.  5:  10.  For  we  must  all  appear  before 
the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  that  every  one  may  receive  of  the 
things  done  in  the  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  wheth- 
er it  be  good  or  bad.  That  the  reader  may  see  with  how  much 
reason  Mr.  B.  asserts,  that  the  word  judgment  seat,  and  the 
scripture  usage  of  it,  is  not  in  favor  of  a  judgment  seat  in  an- 
other state  of  existence,  I  will  quote  all  the  instances  where  it 


44  THE  FUTURE    JUDGMENT. 

occurs.  *'  When  he  was  set  down  upon  the  judgment  seat, 
his  wife  sent  unto  him  "  &c.  "  When  Pilate  therefore  heard 
that  saying,  he  brought  Jesus  forth  and  sat  down  in  the  judg- 
ment seat."  "  Made  insurrection  with  one  accord  against 
Paul,  and  brought  him  to  the  judgment  seat."  "  And  drave 
them  from  the  judgment-seat."  "  The  next  day  sitting  on  the 
judgment  seat,  commanded  Paul  to  be  brought."  "Then  said 
Paul,  I  stand  at  Caesar's  judgment  seat."  "Therefore  when 
they  were  come — I  sat  on  the  judgment  seat" — "Herod,  ar- 
rayed in  his  royal  apparel,  sat  upon  his  throne  [judgment 
seat]  and  made  an  oration  unto  them."  In  one  case  the  word 
is  used  for  foot's  breadth,  but  this  of  course  is  nothing  to  the 
question.  In  every  other  instance  the  word  is  used  for  the 
place  where  the  formal  sittings  of  courts  are  held.  And  if 
they  do  not  refer  to  judgment  in  the  future  world,  it  is  be- 
cause they  are  instances  where  human  judges,  and  not  Jesus 
Christ  are  the  occupants.  If  the  word  when  having  any  re- 
ference to  judgment,  always  denotes  the  place  for  the  holding 
of  a  formal  court,  when  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  is  named* 
it  denotes  the  place  where  Christ  in  person  will  hold  a  formal 
court.  Such  as  no  one  pretends  has  been,  or  will  be  held  on 
this  side  of  the  grave.  And  the  writer  in  the  context  is  speak- 
ing of  death  and  its  consequences,  of  being  absent  from  the 
body.  And  in  the  text,  he  uses  the  clause  "  of  things  done  in 
the  body."  Showing  the  time  of  the  judgment  to  be  after  all 
those  things  are  done  ;  after  the  departure  from  the  body. 
Then,  this  is  represented  as  a  judgment  at  which  a  complete 
retribution  is  measured  out,  for  all  the  deeds  done  in  the  body, 
whether  good  or  bad.  But  tlie  temporal  condition  of  christ- 
ians at  that  age,  was  the  most  wretched  of  any  class,  and  if  the 
judgment  was  temporal,  it  went  against  the  christians — and  in 
favor  of  their  persecutors. 

2  Thes.  1:  6.  Seeing  it  is  a  righteous  thing  with  God  to 
recompense  tribulation  to  them  that  trouble  you,  and  to  you 
who  are  troubled  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be 
revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in  flaming  fire 
taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  obey  not 


THE  FUTURE   JUDGMENT.  45 

the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;   who  shall  be  punished 
with  an  everlasting   destruction,  from  the   presence  of  the 
Lord  and  the  glory  of  his  power,  when  he  shall  come  to  be 
glorified  of  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve.    Mr.  Balfour  objects  to  referring  the  time  when  christ- 
ians are  to  receive  their  rest,  to  the  day  of  judgment,  because 
those  christians  have  already  found  their  rest  at  the  time  of 
their  death.     But  this  surely  should  be  no  objection  in  his 
mind,  who  by  annihilation  of  the  soul,  annihilates  all  time  be- 
tAveen  death  and  the  resurrection.     And  to  us,  it  is  no  objec- 
tion, since  we  regard  the  complete  consummation  of  the  believ- 
er's rest,   to  be  reserved  to  that  day ;    though  their  troubles 
cease  at  death.     And  how  would  Mr.  B.  interpret  a  remark  of 
Christ  parallel  with  this  ?  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  re- 
vile you,  and  persecute  you,  and  say  all  manner  of  evil  against 
you  falsely  for  my  name's  sake ;  Rejoice  and   be   exceeding 
glad,  for  great  is  your  reward  in  heaven.     Is  not  heaven  here 
held  forth  as  the  place  where  saints  receive  their  rest  from  per- 
secutions, and  their  rewards  for  all  endurance  in  the  service  of 
Christ  ?    Although  heaven  according  to  Mr.  Balfour  does  not 
begin  till  after  the  resurrection!  His  next  objection  is,  that  the 
Thesalonians  were  to  obtain  rest  at  the  same  time  that  God  was 
to  recompense  tribulation  to  their  troublers.     Well,  is  not  this 
in  every  sense  true  if  we   understand  the  passage  as  relating 
to  the   final  judgment?    Is  not  that  the  tiaie  both  of  the  con- 
summation of  the  believer's  rest,  and  of  the  consummation  of 
the  recompense  on  the  wicked.    His  third  reason  is,  that  Jeru- 
salem's destruction  was  the  scene  in  which  Christ  is  said  to 
come  to  be  glorified  of  his  saints.      But  was  that  the  time   of 
all  others  when  he  was  to  be  glorified  by  his  saints  ?  If  he  was 
glorified,  then  will  he  not  be  much  more  glorified,  and  much 
more  admired  by  his  saints,  when  he  brings  them  all  to  heav- 
en ?    His  fourth  reason  exceeds  all  the  rest.     Here  you  have 
it  in  his  own  words.     "This  very  application  of  the  word  ever- 
lasting is  a  strong  confirming   circumstance  in  proof  of  the 
views  we  have  advanced."     That  is,  its  being  called  everlast- 
ing destruction,  is  a  circumstance  strong  to  show  that  everlastr 
4* 


46  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

ing  destruction  is  not  meant !  Having  thus  noticed  Mr.  B.'s 
reasons,  I  have  one  or  two  difficulties  to  state  affecting  his  in- 
terpretations. The  Jews  are  not  mentioned  in  the  whole  epis- 
tle. Then,  there  is  no  evidence  that  at  the  time  of  the  writ- 
ing of  this  epistle,  the  Thessalonians  experienced  their  perse- 
cutions mainly  from  the  Jews.  It  is  far  from  being  probable 
that  a  little  handful  of  Jews,  in  that  province  so  distant  from 
Palestine,  afforded  the  church  so  much  annoyance  as  to  re- 
ceive such  a  notice  in  this  epistle,  as  their  persecutors.  And 
then  the  assumption  that  the  Christians  in  all  parts  of  the 
world  were  to  receive  such  a  glorious  rest,  when  Jerusalem 
should  be  destroyed — that  that  event  was  followed  by  a  grand 
and  eternal  jubilee  to  the  church  in  every  province,  is  glaring- 
ly contrary  to  fact.  We  look  in  vain  to  the  history  of  that  age, 
for  any  such  luminous  days  to  the  church,  as  seem  to  figure  in 
the  fancy  of  Mr.  B.  It  is  certain  that  only  sixteen  years  be- 
fore the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Nero  commenced  his  infer- 
nal persecutions,  which  spread  as  far  as  the  Roman  power? 
and  lasted  as  long  as  his  life,  which  ended  only  two  years  be- 
fore that  event.  And  only  eleven  years  after  that  event,  Dom- 
itian,  whose  hostility  was  second  only  to  Nero's,  assumed  the 
imperial  power.  And  surely,  nothing  took  place  in  the  inter- 
val answering  to"  the  descriptions  of  the  text.  Another  diffi- 
culty :  It  wa.s  a.  rest  loith  us —with  Paul,  who  was  dead  long 
before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  And  so  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature,  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Thessalonians 
must  have  been  dead  also.  All  then  that  Mr.  B.  has  said  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding,  the  church  may  look  forward  to  that 
rest  which  remaineth  for  the  people  of  God,  and  the  wicked  be 
assured  of  an  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  and  the  glory  of  his  power,  ministered  by  the  same  hand 
that  consummates  the  rest  of  the  righteous. 

2  Tim.  4:  6.  For  I  am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the 
time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand  ;  I  have  fought  the  good  fight, 
I  have  finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith,  henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the 
Lord  the  righteous  Judge  shall  give  me  at  that  day,  and  not  to 


THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT.  47 

nie  only,  but  to  all  them  that  love  his  appearing.  Who  that 
had  never  read  Mr.  B.  would  dream  of  this  passage,  referring 
to  the  scenes  of  Jerusalem's  destruction?  But  there  are  some 
matters  which  need  explaining  before  we  are  convinced.  This 
vras  said  by  Paul  in  immediate  prospect  of  death,  which  would 
show  that  the  crown  laid  up  for  him  was  a  crown  to  be  receiv- 
ed after  death.  If  a  dying  man  were  heard  to  speak  of  a  re- 
compense laid  up  for  him,  we  should  understand  him  as  ex- 
pecting it  after  death.  Then  we  want  evidence,  as  in  the  last 
paragraph,  that  Jerusalem's  destruction  was  a  scene  of  such 
triumph  to  the  church — such  a  heaven  upon  earth.  The  Sa- 
viour speaks  of  it  as  a  day  of  consternation  and  flight.  And 
the  facts  answered  to  the  prophecy — It  was  a  day  of  "  fleeing 
to  the  mountains,"  when  even  christians  escaped  with  their 
lives,  leaving  as  it  were  their  garments  behind  for  haste  and 
consternation,  and  found  a  refuge  in  a  little  town  by  the  name 
of  Pella.  This  is  the  day  which  Mr.  B.'s  imagination  transforms 
into  a  glorious  Jubilee,  a  universal  rest.  And  then  Paul  did 
not  live  to  be  crowned  upon  that  day,  nor  did  he  expect  to  ;  for 
nearly  twenty  years  before  it  he  pronounced  himself  as  even 
now  ready  to  be  offered.  But  Mr.  B.  nothing  daunted  by  such 
a  difficulty,  will  have  us  believe,  that  though  dead  long  before, 
Paul  was  crowned  at  this  time.  He  says,  "We  have  seen  it 
stated  somewhere  in  the  course  of  our  reading  that,  it  was  com- 
mon to  crown  the  dead  victor  [in  the  ancient  games]  with  his 
crown  the  same  as  if  he  had  been  alive.  It  is  certain,  Adam  in 
his  Roman  Antiquities,  p.  472.  speaking  of  their  funeral  rites 
says,  '  the  couch  was  sometimes  decked  with  leaves  and  flow- 
ers, the  bedstead  of  ivory,  and  if  the  deceased  had  received  a 
a  crown  for  his  bravery,  it  was  now  placed  on  his  head.' "  Now 
it  is  somewhat  strange  that  the  man  who  quotes  Greek  and 
Hebrew  so  profusely  when  there  is  no  occasion  for  it,  should 
send  us  to  "  somewhere  in  the  course  of  his  reading"  for  a  fact 
so  novel,  and  for  one  on  which  so  much  depends.  That  a 
crown  should  be  used  in  funeral  rites  as  one  of  the  trappings 
by  which  a  corpse  was  laid  out  in  state,  in  remembrance  of 
some  achievements,  by  which  a  man's  life  had  been  signalized, 


43  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

is  a  matter  familiar  to  every  tyro.  Bat  it  happens  that  the  text 
before  us  has  no  allusion  to  funeral  rites — but  to  the  exercises 
of  the  Grecian  games  ;  and  Mr.  B.  perhaps  would  have  given 
the  world  some  instruction  if  he  had  told  us  where  he  read, 
that  in  games  which  consisted  in  wrestling  and  running  races, 
(for  these  were  not  gladiatorial  exercises)  men  were  wont  to 
be  killed — and  he  who  was  killed  in  a  race  could  be  the  victor 
— and  then  such  victors  croAvned  after  they  were  killed;  and, 
after  having  admitted  all  this,  we  want  to  know  in  ivhatfact 
consisted  the  crowning  of  Paul  at  the  time  of  Jerusalem's  des- 
truction. What  fact  then  transpired  fit  to  be  the  basis  of  such 
a  representation,  what  remembrance  was  made  of  the  apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  by  any  of  the  parties  concerned  in  that  trage- 
dy ?  And  then,  admitting  that  his  memory  was  some  ^vay  hon- 
ored there,  could  that  be  a  crown  laid  up  for  him,  the  desire  of 
which  goes  out  with  such  a  gush  of  emotion  as  is  expressed  in 
the  text  ?  Was  Paul  such  an  ambitious  aspirant  for  posthumous 
fame  ? 

Heb.  9:  27.  And  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but 
after  this  the  judgment.  The  question  before  us  is,  whether 
there  be  a  judgment  after  death.  And  what  says  the  text  ? 
Here  I  can  most  conveniently  express  Mr.  B.'s  views  and  my 
own  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue.  Balfour.  One  would  think  it  a 
premature  conclusion,  that  the  soul  is  to  be  judged  after  death 
unless  it  first  be  proved  that  man  has  a  soul.  Answer.  Wheth- 
er it  be  a  man's  soul  or  body  that  is  judged,  it  is  here  asserted 
that  after  death  is  the  judgment.  B.  But  this  is  the  only  text 
that  speaks  of  a  judgment  after  death,  while  the  vast  import- 
ance of  the  subject  required,  (if  there  be  a  judgment  after 
death)  that  these  things  should  stand  forth  in  large  capitals. 
An3.  This  is  not  the  only  text  that  speaks  of  a  judgment  after 
death,  as  we  have  seen.  And  if  it  were,  one  assertion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  should  convince  and  satisfy  us.  B.  Will  you  tell 
us  when  this  judgment  takes  place;  immediately  after  death 
•ir  at  the  resurrection  ?  Ans.  It  is  both  immediately  after  dcatii 
and  at  the  resurrection  ;  in  the  first  case  in  the  man's  own  con- 
science, and  in  the  other  amid  the  public  formalities  of  a  gen- 


THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT.  49 

eral  judgment.  But  suppose  we  could  not  tell ;  so  much  would 
be  true  as  God's  assertion  can  make  it,  That  after  death  is 
the  judgment.  But  pray,  Mr.  B.  will  you  tell  us  what  kind  of 
judgment  this  is  that  comes  after  death  ?  B.  Yes,  you  have  it 
in  this — Dust  thou  art  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return.  That 
is,  after  the  body  is  dead  it  is  adjudged  to  turn  to  dust.  Ans. 
Then  we  are  finally  lodged  in  the  conclusion  that  the  judgment 
means  the  decomposition  of  the  body.  The  invention  of  man 
would  never  have  hit  on  that  idea,  unless  urged  by  strong  ne- 
cessity. But  when  we  find  an  instance  in  any  writer,  sacred 
or  profane,  where  the  word  has  this  meaning,  it  will  be  time  to 
consider  whether  that  is  the  meaning  here.  Till  then,  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  passage  may  be  taken  for  the  true  mean- 
ing. It  is  appointed  unto  all  men  once  to  die  and  after  this  the 
judgment. 

2  Peter  3:  7.  But  the  heavens  and  the  earth  which  are  now, 
by  the  same  word  are  kept  in  store,  reserved  unto  fire  against 
the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of  ungodly  men.  This  pas- 
sage Mr.  B.  also  refers  to  the  day  of  God's  temporal  vengeance 
on  the  Jews,  because  the  dissolution  of  kingdoms  is  sometimes 
described  by  such  figures  as  that  of  the  dissolving  of  the  heav- 
ens and  earth.  And  he  says,  "  If  it  should  be  contended  that 
verses  7 — .12.  describe  the  end  of  this  material  system,  why  not 
also  contend  that  verse  13.  promises  a  new  material  heaven 
and  earth  which  are  to  succeed  their  dissolution.  If  the  one  is 
understood  literally,  so  must  the  other.  But  it  is  universally 
allowed,  that  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  refer  to  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  which  was  to  succeed  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation and  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament."  What 
does  tlie  man  mean  by  this  ?  Does  he  not  know  that  we  con- 
tend, and  does  not  he  himself  contend  for  a  new  material  sys- 
tem to  be  occupied  by  the  material  bodies,  which  the  saints 
will  have  after  the  resurrection.  If  man  has  no  soul  separate 
from  material  bodies,  in  this  or  the  coming  world,  surely  those 
bodies  must  have  a  material  dwelling  place.  But  when  I  hear 
him  assert,  that  it  is  universally  allowed  that  the  phrase,  new 
heavens  and  new  earth,  here  refers  to  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 


50  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

siah  in  this  world,  I  am  still  more  stumbled.  And  I  know  not 
whether  it  be  most  charitable  to  attribute  the  misrepresenta- 
tion to  ignorance  or  design.  Such  writers  as  he  ought  to  con- 
sult before  he  pronounces  upon  what  we  all  allow — such  as 
►Scott,  Dwight,  Chalmers,  Rosenmliller  and  Storr,  are  directl}' 
against  him,  (and  nowhere  in  the  course  of  my  reading  have  I 
found  one  in  his  favor)  as  to  the  fact  of  there  being  a  new 
material  system  after  the  resurrection.  And  yet  this  ground- 
less assertion  contains  the  main  force  to  be  found  in  his  eva- 
sion of  this  text.  Where  in  all  the  chapter  is  the  least  intima- 
tion of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  The  creation  and  the 
deluge  are  directly  brought  in  as  historical  facts,  and  a  com- 
parison is  instituted  between  those  events  and  the  passing 
away  of  the  heavens  and  earth,  and  the  arising  of  a  new  mate- 
rial system  in  their  place,  which  is  yet  to  come,  and  you  may 
as  well  apply  what  is  said  of  the  creation  and  deluge  to  politi- 
cal changes,  as  what  is  said  of  the  coming  destruction  of  the 
world.  The  ideas  are  majestic,  but  they  wear  not  the  costume 
of  fiction  or  poetry — the  majesty  of  the  language  is  but  the  na- 
ked majesty  of  the  events  described. 

Jude  14.  Enoch  also,  the  seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied  of 
these,  saying,  behold  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of 
his  saints,  to  execnte  judgment  upon  all,  and  convince  all  that 
are  ungodly  among  them,  of  all  their  ungodly  deeds  which  they 
have  ungodly  committed,  and  of  all  their  hard  speeches  which 
ungodly  sinners  have  spoken  against  him.  Here  Mr.  B.  finds 
another  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  again.  But 
he  fails  of  showing  that  the  persons  spoken  of  or  spoken  to  in 
this  epistle,  were  Jews,  or  that  that  passage  has  any  particu- 
lar reference  to  Jews.  He  does  not  inform  us  how  Enoch  be- 
fore the  flood  should  have  a  prophetic  eye  on  Jerusalem's  des- 
truction, or  what  particular  appropriateness  the  words  of  this 
prophecy  have  to  describe  such  an  event,  or  what  is  repre- 
sented by  ten  thousand  saints  accompanying  Christ  in  that 
scene.  There  were  no  saints  that  came  from  heaven  to  help 
Christ  destroy  Jerusalem— for  on  Mr.  B.'s  hypothesis  there 
v/ere  none  in  heaven  at  that  time  ;  and  surely  the  Roman  army 


THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT.  51 

was  far  from  being  an  army  of  saints.  Mr.  B.  refers  us  to  three 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  where  ho  says  similar  language 
is  used  in  application  to  other  events  than  the  judgment.  But 
in  the  two  first  passages  quoted,  none  but  Mr.  B.  would  dis- 
cover the  similarity,  and  in  the  third,  Dan.  7: 10.  the  final  judg- 
ment is  most  clearly  included  in  the  description.  And  then 
it  was  not  true  that  all  the  hard  speeches  and  ungodly  deeds  of 
all  that  are  ungodly  were  brought  to  light  in  Jerusalem's  des- 
truction. 

Rev.  20:  22.  And  I  saw  the  dead  small  and  great  stand 
before  God,  and  the  books  were  opened,  and  another  book  was 
opened  which  is  the  book  of  life,  and  the  dead  were  judged  out 
of  the  things  written  in  the  books  according  to  their  works, 
and  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it,  and  death  and 
hell  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them,  and  they  were 
judged  every  man  according  to  their  works.  As  Mr.  B.  admits 
that  this  passage  refers  to  the  resurrection  and  gives  us  no 
reason  why  we  must  not  understand  it  of  the  general  judg- 
ment, I  shall  not  for  the  present  abate  its  force  with  any  com- 
ments. It  will  come  under  consideration  again  in  another  part 
of  this  discussion.  You  observe  that  the  very  point  in  question 
is  here  affirmed :  the  dead  small  and  great  after  the  resurrec- 
tion standing  before  God  and  receiving  judgment.  I  wish  not 
to  be  captious,  but  here  again  charity  is  perplexed  to  know 
whether  design  or  inadvertance  is  the  most  favorable  construc- 
tion of  another  instance  of  Mr.  B.'s  improper  dealing  with  his 
readers.  In  the  commencement  of  the  essay  now  under  ex- 
amination, he  says,  "In  this  essay  we  shall  refer  to  all  the  pla- 
ces where  these  words  are  used  in  the  New  Testament,  ac- 
cording to  their  renderings  in  the  common  version.  Under 
each  word  we  shall  particularly  consider  the  passages  which 
are  supposed  to  teach  a  retribution  or  punishment  after  death." 
He  then  takes  up  the  word  ^^  krino,''^  the  one  used  in  this  pas- 
sage and  refers  us  to  fifty-nine  texts  where  it  is  used,  and 
says  that  none  of  these  texts  teach  the  doctrine  ;  and  then  adds, 
"  but  the  following  are  supposed  to  teach  it."  But  in  which 
class  does  he  place  the  text  before  us  ?  In  neither.     The  text 


52  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

is  not  quoted  or  alluded  to  in  the  whole  essay  ;  and  that,  while 
in  the  first  sentence  of  the  essay  he  promises  to  refer  to  all  the 
passages  which  contain  the  word  "  krinoy  And  to  show  that 
it  was  not  the  effect  of  inadvertance  this  same  passage  is  com- 
mented upon  in  the  discussion  of  other  subjects  but  even  there 
its  bearings  on  this  subject  are  not  alluded  to.  If  this  be  not 
an  artifice  to  cover  up  the  truth  it  is  not  easy  to  say  what  is. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  here  to  introduce  two  passages 
from  the  Old  Testament.  Eccl.  12:  14,  For  God  will  bring 
every  work  into  judgment  Avith  every  secret  thing  whether  it 
be  good  or  whether  it  be  evil.  Whether  this  passage  would 
also  be  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  if  Mr.  B.  had 
undertaken  to  notice  its  bearings  on  the  question,  I  cannot 
say.  Certainly  the  readers  of  the  book  in  Solomon's  day  had 
nothing  to  lead  them  to  such  an  interpretation.  The  writer 
brings  this  in  as  the  winding  up  of  a  description  of  the  scenes 
of  old  age  and  of  death.  He  does  it  in  this  impressive  manner 
— Let  us  hear  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter,  fear  God 
and  keep  his  commandments,  for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man. 
For  God  will  bring  every  work  into  judgment,  &c.  Judgment 
here  means  an  examination  of  conduct,  a  bringing  to  light  of 
secret  things,  and  deciding  whether  they  be  good  or  evil. 
But  in  all  the  experience  of  this  world  there  is  nothing  that  fit? 
such  language. 

Dan.  12:  2,  3.  And  many  of  them  (or  the  multitude  of  them) 
that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  ever- 
lasting life  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  And 
they  that  be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firma- 
ment, and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  as  the  stars 
forever  and  ever.  So  far  as  it  affects  the  question  before  us,  I 
am  willing  to  grant  what  Mr.  B.  labors  to  prove  of  the  first 
verse  of  this  chapter,  viz.  that  it  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, though  1  do  not  believe  it.  But  this  granted,  it  by  no 
means  follows,  as  Mr.  B.  assumes,  that  the  second  and  third 
verses  relate  to  the  same  events.  The  verses  describe  one 
event  that  concludes  a  series  of  events  prophetically  described 
by  Daniel,  extending  from  his  day  onward  to  the  close  of  thi?: 


THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT.  53 

world's  history.  That  events  so  distant  in  time  should  stand 
in  such  near  connexion,  is  nothing  unusual.  Numerous  in- 
stances might  be  adduced  of  the  same  peculiarity  of  prophetic 
language.  Jeremiah  connects  the  conversion  of  the  first  fruits 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  general  conversion  which  is  to  be  expect- 
ed in  future  time,  and  passes  over  the  intermediate  rejection 
of  the  greater  part.  So  Malachi  prophesies  of  the  coming  of 
John  the  Baptist,  in  the  same  verse  with  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, as.  Behold  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet  before 
the  coming  of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord.  Such 
being  the  habit  of  prophetic  writing,  we  must  bo  determined 
by  other  reasons  than  the  connexion,  as  to  the  time  and  event 
here  made  the  object  of  prophecy.  And  the  expressions  of 
this  passage  must  have  great  violence  done  them,  before  they 
can  be  applied  to  any  thing  else  than  the  resurrection  and 
general  judgment.  Mr.  B.  pretends  that  a  moral  resurrection, 
such  as  took  place  on  the  day  of  pentecost  is  here  foretold — 
that  they  that  sleep  in  the  dust  are  those  who  were  spiritually 
dead.  Here  we  have  it,  that  many  at  that  time  would  rise 
from  spiritual  death — and  some  of  these  would  find  that  they 
had  risen  from  spiritual  death,  to  go  into  shame  and  everlasting 
contempt!  Awaking  from  the  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth, 
either  means  coming  to  spiritual  life,  or  it  does  not.  If  it  means 
that,  it  can  by  no  means  be  asserted  of  those  who  awake  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  Mr.  B.  quotes  no  authority 
to  show  that  awaking  from  a  sleep  in  the  dust,  is  proper  phras- 
eology to  express  the  being  put  to  sleep  in  the  dust  by  the  Ro- 
man sword.  And  yet  he  tells  us  that  a  part  awoke  to  everlasting 
life  at  the  day  of  pentecost  and  then  forty  years  afterwards, 
those  who  continued  to  sleep  on,  all  at  last  awoke  to  shame  and 
everlasting  contempt,  in  the  national  calamities  that  came  up- 
on them.  And  then  what  were  the  glorious  rewards  attained 
by  those  who  rose  to  everlasting  life,  fit  to  be  compared  to 
shining  as  the  stars  and  the  firmament  ?  Surely  it  was  not 
the  glory  of  a  flight  to  the  town  of  Pella,  "the  only  reward 
which  history  records  as  received  by  christians  then.  Mr. 
Balfour  makes  the  directness  and  plainness  of  this  passage  an 
5 


54  THE  FUTURE  JUDGMENT. 

objection.  He  says,  "  Did  Daniel  here  speak  of  everlasting- 
punishment  of  the  wicked  ?  If  he  did,  he  declared  it  in  plainer 
language  than  any  other  sacred  writer."  Surely  he  is  like  to 
children  sitting  in  the  market  and  saying  we  have  piped  urito 
you,  and  ye  have  not  danced,  we  have  mourned  unto  you  and 
ye  have  not  lamented.  The  truth  now  is  taught  too  plainly 
to  admit  belief. 

I  have  already  pursued  this  examination  beyond  the  patience 
of  the  reader,  and  shall  therefore  omit  other  passages  whose 
testimony  is  equally  in  point.  And  were  I  to  labor  in  the 
summing  up  of  the  matter  contained  in  this  chapter  to  give 
you  a  vivid  and  forcible  condensation  of  the  proof,  I  could  do 
nothing  more  effectually  than  to  read  you  the  passages  com- 
mented on,  and  ask  you  to  decide,  what  is  the  plain  unsophis- 
ticated common  sense  interpretation  of  them.  Read  them  and 
forget  every  comment  that  you  heard  of  them,  and  you  will 
find  it  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction  that  the  word  of  God 
has  revealed  a  judgment  to  come. 


CHAPTER  III. 


COLLATERAL  PROOFS  OF  A  JUDGMENT  TO  COME. 

I  CANNOT  persuade  myself  to  dismiss  this  topic,  without  pre- 
senting- some  facts  and  considerations  which,  independent  of 
direct  scripture  testimony,  appear  to  my  own  mind,  conclusive 
proofs  that  there  is  to  be  a  judgment  after  death.  The  theory 
of  Mr.  Balfour  and  the  modern  universalists  (excepting  as  I  do 
in  all  this  discussion,  the  restorationists)  is,  if  I  understand  it, 
that  all  punishment  or  retribution  which  God  ever  inflicts  on 
men,  he  inflicts  in  this  world.  This  idea  I  think  can  be  shown 
to  be  untenable,  aside  from  that  kind  of  evidence  which  we 
have  been  examining.  That  it  can  be  clearly  proved  that  this 
present  life  is  not  the  scene  of  God's  last  and  most  complete 
retribution.  I  shall  not  pretend  that  nothing  is  here  done  in  a 
way  of  retribution.  Scripture  records  many  instances  of  re- 
tributions inflicted  on  nations  and  individuals.  God  here  and 
there  lets  down  a  stroke  of  his  justice  to  check  the  flow  of  hu- 
man wickedness,  and  forewarn  the  world  of  what  is  to  be  ex- 
pected, at  the  termination  of  the  sinner's  guilty  career.  But 
it  is  generally  true  that  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not 
speedily  executed. 

My  first  reason  for  believing  that  this  life  is  not  the  scene 
of  complete  and  only  retribution,  is,  that  the  ends  of  punish- 
ment are  not  fully  nor  chiefly  answered  by  all  the  judgments 
that  are  inflicted  on  the  wicked  here.  What  is  the  end  of 
punishment  ?  The  universalist  replies  the  good  of  the  offend- 
er only.  This  is  not  true.  But  grant  it  for  the  moment.  If 
all  are  punished  according  to  their  deeds  in  this  world,  it  is 
plain  that  this  punishment  fails  of  securing  in  all  instances  the 
reformation  of  the    offender.      Those  passages  of  scripture 


56  COLLATERAL    PROOFS 

which  speak  of  judging  every  man  according  to  his  works, 
are  made  by  the  universalist  to  say  that  all  men  have  a  com- 
plete retribution  according  to  the  deserts  of  their  sin  in  this 
world,  and  this  punishment  is  designed  to  reform  the  offender. 
But  I  ask,  is  this  end  answered  ?  Are  all  effectually  reformed 
in  this  life  ?  Are  the  evils  which  the  drunkard  endures  seen  to 
be  working  a  gradual  reformation  upon  him  as  he  approximates 
towards  a  drunkard's  death?  Does  the  man  in  the  act  of  suicide 
show  that  the  work  of  reformation  Avas  complete  upon  him  at 
the  moment  when  he  left  the  world  ?  The  well  known  fact 
that  millions  of  wretched  beings  are  pressing  on  from  this  to 
the  eternal  world,  increasing  in  wickedness  and  hardness  of 
heart  as  they  go,  shows  that  the  purpose  of  man's  reformation 
is  not  universally  and  completely  effected  by  punishment  or 
any  other  means  in  this  world.  On  this  hypothesis  God  is 
every  where  attempting  what  he  cannot  effect,  and  then  re- 
ceiving into  a  state  of  being,  where  punishment  and  the  rod  of 
correction  never  come — receiving  to  his  confidence  and  love 
those  whose  obstinate  rebellion  neither  persuasions  nor  chas- 
tisements could  subdue. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  all  punishment  is  disciplinary,  intend- 
ed for  the  ultimate  good  of  the  offender.  The  execution  of  a 
murderer  is  not  specially  intended  for  his  own  good,  but  for 
the  good  of  the  state,  to  sustain  the  force  of  law.  And  the 
laws  of  God  look  as  much  to  the  public  good  as  do  the  laws  of 
a  state.  But  understanding  retribution  as  designed  to  give 
force  to  law,  and  cause  the  lawgiver  to  be  feared  and  obeyed, 
we  do  not  see  its  ends  universally  or  generally  answered  in 
this  world.  No  retributions,  here  experienced,  avail  to  create 
a  general  respect  for  the  law  of  God,  to  vindicate  his  power, 
holiness  and  truth,  till  all  men  have  an  effectual  impression  of 
it,  and  to  rectify  the  disorders  of  the  moral  kingdom.  We  ex- 
pect that  the  authority  of  God  will  be  recognized,  that  the 
force  and  energy  of  government  will  be  felt,  if  any  where, 
surely  on  the  ground  where  law  is  having  its  highest  and  most 
impressive  executions.  But  what  a  farce  is  God's  law,  and  what 
a  mockery  its  execution,  if  having  done  its  utmost,  it  secures 


OF    A   JUDGMENT    TO    COME.  57 

respect  and  obedience,  than  it  gets  from  tliis  world  ! 

P  J  ither  has  no  law  to  which  he  will  exact  the  obedience  of 
or  there  is  to  be  a  day  after  the  sun  has  ceased  to  shine 

.on  this  world,  when  he  will  render  unto  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  works. 

The  fact  that  there  are  Atheists  in  the  world,  is  of  itself  a 
proof  of  a  judgment  in  the  future  world.  For  I  take  it  to  be 
self-evident,  that  retribution  does  not  answer  its  proper  ends, 
unless  the  person  knows  whence  and  why  the  infliction  comes. 
According  to  th«  Hebrew  law-giver,  the  offender  is  punished 
that  all  men  may  hear  and  fear ;  and  retribution  is  in  amount 
the  practical  declaration  of  God,  of  his  purpose  to  enforce  obe- 
dience, and  if  effectual,  it  is  received  as  such  by  all  on  whom 
the  example  operates.  If  the  government  of  any  common- 
wealth should  send  out  the  strokes  of  justice  through  secret 
agents,  employed  for  the  punishment  of  crime,  instead  of  dis- 
tributing them  through  open  courts  of  justice,  so  that  the  com- 
munity should  see  that  one  was  made  to  suffer  in  his  estate, 
another  in  his  reputation,  another  in  the  loss  of  life,  while  none 
knew  why  and  whence  the  disaster  came — that  would  answer 
no  ends  of  government,  and  give  no  force  to  law.  So  a  punish- 
ment sent  from  the  King  of  kings,  if  it  come  not  in  ways  so 
marked  and  manifest,  as  to  compel  conviction  whence  and 
why  it  comes,  fails  of  its  end.  Is  it  to  be  credited  then, 
that  this  world  is  the  scene  where  God  makes  the  highest 
manifestations  of  his  justice,  and  gives  the  fullest  enforce- 
ments to  his  law  by  penalties,  while  a  great  part  of  the  world 
have  no  practical  impression  that  there  is  a  God — while  few 
of  those  most  deserving  of  punishment  have  any  idea  that  they 
are  receiving  punishment  for  their  sins  ?  Is  God  pouring  his 
completest  retributions  through  this  world,  while  the  world 
knows  it  not  ?  If  so  his  whole  design  is  frustrated,  he  is  mocked 
by  the  work  of  his  hands — he  is  mocked  in  his  very  attempt  to 
make  his  power  and  justice  known.  And  then  it  is  a  remark- 
able fact  that  the  most  wicked,  those  who  deserve  most  deep- 
ly to  feel  the  rod  are  usually  most  insensible  of  God's  presence 
and  power  in  the  evils  which  they  endure.     Does  this  imper= 


58  COLLATERAL    PROOFS 

fection  attend  the  government  of  God,  that  he  cannoi.-        „_ 
ergy  and  effect  to  his  retributions,  that  he  punishes  and'-,g  ^f, 
fender  knows  not  by  whom  he  is  punished  or  whether  he  is  ^^^^ 
ished  or  not  ?   I  think  we  have  reason  to  expect  that  wh^ 
God  puts  on  the  character  of  a  judge  in  order  to  render  to  ever> 
mm  according  to  his  works,  he  will  make  his  justice  run  out  in 
such  lines,  that  every  eye  can  see  it — he  will  throw  upon  the 
distinction  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  such  a  light 
that  all  will  be  forced  to  recognize  it — he  will  let  forth  the  hand 
that  inflicts  the  stroke  so   impressively  that  none  can  doubt 
whence  it  comes  or  for  what  intent.     There  will  be  no  athe- 
ists in  that  day  which  God  has  apjiointed  to  judge  the  world. 

Again,  the  success  which  the  Avorst  of  men  often  find  in  the 
worst  of  schemes,  proves  that  God  has  judgments  in  reserve 
for  the  future  world.  I  will  not  say  to  how  great  an  extent  it 
is  true,  as  Job  expresses,  that  The  tabernacles  of  robbers 
prosper,  and  they  that  provoke  God  are  secure,  into  whose 
hands  God  bringeth  abundantly.  I  own  that  there  are  instan- 
ces of  retribution  signal  and  exemplary,  so  often  that  the  rob- 
ber has  reason  to  fear  that  wealth  gotten  by  his  means,  will 
afford  him  little  comfort.  But  it  is  sufficient  for  our  argument 
that  there  are  many  glaring  facts  of  a  contrary  nature,  that  there 
is  many  a  proud  oppressor  who  gathers  wealth  from  the  sighs  and 
tears  of  his  fellow -men,  and  yet  who  lives  to  enjoy  his  wealth  as 
long  as  the  most  upright  —that  there  are  those  into  whose  hands 
God  bringeth  abundantly,  who  by  the  worst  of  means  have  accu- 
mulated hundreds  of  thousands,  and  yet  who  live  and  die  free 
from  disastrous  reverses,  whose  stately  mansions  seem  to  look 
defiance  to  the  God  of  justice,  and  impress  on  every  beholder 
the  conviction  that  justice  is  forever  The  dethroned,  if  she  have 
not  reserved  for  herself  a  vindication  in  the  world  to  come. 
What  say  you  of  those  who  by  acts  of  piracy  and  butchery  of 
their  fellow-men,  enrich  themselves  with  the  wealth  of  the 
seas,  and  yet  escape  detection  ?  What  of  those,  who  against 
light  and  conviction  make  merchandise  of  men's  bodies,  and 
roll  in  aflfluence  brought  to  them  in  ships  that  have  served  as 
the  prison-house,  yea,  the  slaughter-house  of  hundreds  of  hu- 


OV    A    JUDGMENT    TO    COME.  59 

man  beings,  snatched  from  home  and  the  sweet  embrace  of 
freedom,  and  doomed  to  the  wretched  alternative  of  a  life  of 
bitter  slavery,  or  an  untimely  death  ?  What  say  you  of  those 
names,  that  blacken  the  page  of  history  by  their  glaring  and 
innumerable  perversions  of  justice — who,  elevated  in  the  prov- 
idence of  God  to  seats  of  sacred  trust,  to  be  ministers  of  God 
for  good,  bearing  the  sword  of  justice  in  God's  stead,  have  en- 
riched themselves  with  bribes,  and  turned  aside  the  needy  from 
his  right,  or  who,  like  Jeffries  of  execrated  memory,  have  con- 
verted the  sword  of  justice  to  that  of  religious  persecution,  and 
sold  themselves  and  the  power  delegated  to  them,  as  instru- 
ments of  crushing  a  nation's  rights,  and  the  rising  hopes  of  the 
church  of  God  ?  Is  there  no  justice  in  the  future  world  for 
those,  who  have  spent  their  lives  in  driving  so  successfully  their 
schemes  of  expelling  justice  from  this  world?  What  say  you 
also  of  the  spiritual  tyrants  who  have  perverted  a  poAver  if  pos- 
sible more  sacred,  to  purposes  if  possible  more  wicked,  and 
who  have  had  full  success  in  their  enterprises  ?  To  save  the 
labor  of  description,  take  the  name  of  a  Laud.  Is  there  no 
justice  for  such  a  man,  whose  tyrannies  so  long  prevailed  to 
ends  so  disastrous — to  the  ejecting  of  God's  ministers  by  thou- 
sands, to  the  silencing  of  the  voice  of  the  gospel  through  a 
kingdom,  and  suspending  the  glorious  progress  of  the  work  of 
reformation?  If  there  be  any  such  thing  as  wrong  and  respon- 
sibility for  it,  surely  the  man  who  has  dealt  out  such  wholesale 
mischiefs,  and  caused  his  oppressions  to  be  felt  through  every 
village  and  hamlet  of  an  empire,  and  even  on  the  other  side  of 
the  globe,  must  have  a  fearful  account  against  him.  But  Avhere 
on  this  side  of  the  grave  is  the  execution  of  adequate  justice  ? 
But  even  a  Laud  is  innocent  compared  with  the  artificers 
and  wholesale  distributors  of  the  manifold  mischiefs  of  popery. 
Here  is  a  human  being  to  be  judged  of  God  according  to  his 
works,  according  to  the  mischiefs  which  he  does  in  the  world, 
and  he  usurps  the  place  of  God  over  this  world,  claiming  the 
obedience  of  kings,  and  causing  them  to  kiss  Jiis  feet,  and 
through  them  exercising  a  tyranny  over  half  the  world,  dark  and 
malignant — taking  away  the  key  of  knowledge,  shutting  np 


60  COLLATERAL    PROOFS 

the  kingdom  of  heaven,  suppressing  the  gospel  which  Christ 
has  published,  licensing  and  fostering  sin  in  all  its  forms,  pal- 
sying the  heart  and  searing  the  conscience,  and  enslaving  and 
making  wretched  millions  of  human  minds.  In  short,  the 
wearer  of  the  triple  crown,  personates  the  man  of  sin,  holds 
the  fountain  head  of  that  influence  which  spreads  intellectual 
and  mora  1  debasement,  a  fearful  growth  of  crime,  manifold 
oppression,  violence,  confusion,  and  every  evil  work,  over  many 
nations,  and  yet  where  on  this  side  of  the  grave,  is  he  punish- 
ed for  all  the  injuries  he  inflicts  ?  What  say  you  also  of  the 
leaders  in  the  persecutions  of  the  church  ?  What  of  Nero, 
who  regaled  himself  in  scenes  of  cruelty  and  human  suffering, 
and  who  capped  the  climax  of  all  his  other  cruelties,  by  firing 
the  city  of  Rome  to  enjoy  the  spectacle  of  its  conflagration  ? 
History  records  no  judgments  upon  him  equal  to  his  crimes. 
Yet  is  God  the  patron  of  right,  the  mighty  redeemer  of  the  op- 
pressed, and  has  he  not  appointed  a  day,  when  the  world  who 
have  felt,  and  the  world  who  have  wondered  at  that  man's  cru- 
elties, shall  see  an  ample  vindication  of  his  justice  upon  him  ? 
What  say  you  of  the  respective  authors  of  the  ten  persecu- 
tions which  came  from  heathen  Rome,  upon  the  church  of 
God,  and  deluged  the  empire  with  christian  blood  ?  What  of 
the  authors  of  those  persecutions  inflicted  on  the  church  by 
Papal  authority  ?  What  of  the  cruelties  of  the  inquisition  which 
is  fitly  burlesqued  with  the  name  of  holy '^  For  these  scenes  of 
slaughter  of  the  saints  some  individuals  stand  responsible. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  butchery  of  the  Waldenses  which  came 
near  to  a  total  extinction  of  that  precious,  unoffending  race. 
They  were  hunted  like  wild  beasts  among  the  rocks  and  moun- 
tains of  the  Alps  to  which  they  fled  for  refuge  ;  and  persons 
of  every  age,  sex  and  condition  were  massacred,  dismembered 
and  hung  up  ;  females  violated,  and  other  atrocities  commit- 
ted which  want  a  name,  under  authority  of  one  claiming  to  be 
the  vicar  of  Christ  on  earth.  Is  there  no  justice  in  store  for  the 
authors  of  such  cruelties. 

You  have  read  also  the  story  of  the  massacre,  by  the  orders 
of  a  Roman  Catliolic  king  of  France,  of  100,000  protestants  at 


OF    A   JUDGMENT    TO    COME.  i)l^ 

once — of  the  savage  king  standing  at  the  windows  of  his  pal- 
ace and  setting  on  the  furious  populace,  with  cries  of  "  kill ! 
kill !"  of  the  streets  filled  with  the  shrieks  of  those  about  to  be 
butchered,  and  the  groans  of  the  dying  mingled  with  the  tumult 
of  their  murderers — of  blood  running  in  such  channels  through 
the  streets  as  to  pour  torrents  into  the  neighboring  river — yes, 
and  you  have  read  of  the  infernal  rejoicings  over  this  scene, 
which  took  place  at  Rome,  when  the  tidings  reached  that  place  ; 
yet  where  has  history  recorded  any  equal  retributions  upon  the 
actors  in  these  several  tragedies?  Do  you  say  they  are  yet  to 
come  in  the  expected  overthrow  of  the  church  of  Rome  ?  But 
are  those  individuals  thus  to  shift  all  their  personal  guilt  upon 
the  church  which  is  incapable  of  personal  responsibility  ? 
Wherein  will  that  overthrov/  bring  appropriate  and  sufficient 
retributions,  to  the  leading  fabricators  of  this  carnage,  who 
have  now  gone  beyond  the  reach  of  all  earthly  justice  ?  Post- 
humous infamy,  and  disasters  coming  upon  their  church  cen- 
turies after  they  are  dead,  are  no  personal  punishment  to  them. 
Is  this  the  world  where  God  makes  the  completest  displays  of 
his  retributive  justice,  and  are  such  giants  in  wrong  suffered  to 
pass  off  the  stage  undistinguished  by  his  judgments  from  com- 
mon sinners  ? 

Again,  there  is  not  time  for  some  sinners  to  sufi'er  all  they 
deserve  in  the  usual  term  of  human  life,  even  according  to  the 
most  superficial  calculation  of  guilt.  To  say  nothing  of  the 
criminality  of  the  rebellion  of  the  heart,  estimated  by  a  law 
which  takes  cognizance  of  thoughts  and  purposes,  all  the  suf- 
ferings that  can  be  crowded  into  this  life,  cannot  expiate  the 
guilt  of  some  men's  open  transgressions.  Here  is  a  man  who 
has  been  the  prime  and  responsible  agent  in  the  butchery  of 
fifty  thousand  human  beings  to  gratify  his  lust  of  power  or  re- 
venge. So  much  human  life  has  been  wantonly  poured  out, 
so  much  collateral  distress  created  in  the  train  of  war,  so  many 
families  bereft,  so  much  destruction  of  the  means  of  human  ex- 
istence and  happiness,  so  much  moral  corruption  carried 
through  the  heart  and  remotest  limbs  of  the  nation,  stand 
charged  against  that  man  in  God's   book  of  romembranco. 


62  COLLATERAL    PROOFS 

Now  at  what  rate  shall  this  man  expiate  his  offences  by  the 
suffering  of  punishment  ?  Surely  it  can  be  at  a  rate  no  more 
moderate  than  that  of  an  eye  for  an  eye,  or  a  tooth  for  a  tooth, 
or  a  life  for  a  life.  God  does  not  render  to  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  works,  and  make  it  true  that  with  what  measure  ye 
mete  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again,  if  in  his  retributions 
he  requires  less  injury  to  be  inflicted  on  the  offender  than  was 
done  by  him.  That  law  throws  but  a  feeble  guard  around  the 
rights  of  the  community,  which  only  compels  the  depredator 
to  restore  a  part  of  his  booty,  which  allows  a  man  to  take  hu- 
man life,  and  punishes  him  in  that  which  is  not  equivalent  to 
the  loss  of  life.  The  publication  of  such  laws  would  amount 
to  the  offering  of  a  premium  for  sin.  But  suppose  the  offend- 
er is  held  responsible  to  an  amount  equal  to  the  injury  which 
he  has  done.  God  does  not  recompense  to  a  man  according 
to  his  deeds,  without  making  his  individual  sufferings,  equal  to 
all  the  sufferings  which  he  has  inflicted, — to  the  man  who  has 
unjustly  taken  fifty  thousand  lives,  a  suffering  equal  to  the  loss 
of  fifty  thousand  lives.  But  how  could  that  amount  of  suffering 
be  accumulated  upon  one  man  in  the  term  of  human  existence  ? 
But  we  may  find  a  still  stronger  case,  a  man  whose  influence 
has  powerfully  touched  the  destinies  of  the  world,  and  gone 
down  in  many  a  branching  stream  of  pestilence  and  death  to 
succeeding  centuries.  I  have  my  eye  on  the  author  of  Ma- 
hommedan  delusion,  who  in  the  Apocalypse  takes  the  name  of 
the  angel  of  the  bottomless  pit ;  and  the  spread  of  whose  de- 
lusion and  power  in  the  world  is  compared  to  the  opening  of 
the  bottomless  pit,  or  the  uncapping  of  a  tremendous  volcano — 
that  issues  smoke  darkening  the  air — a  smoke  producing  lo- 
custs having  the  teeth  of  lions  and  breast-plates  of  iron,  and  the 
sound  of  their  wings  as  the  sound  of  chariots  and  horses  rush- 
ing to  battle,  and  their  tails  like  unto  scorpions  with  stings  in 
their  tails,  and  having  a  king  over  them  whose  name  is  the 
"  Destroyer."  How  appropriate  is  all  this  imagery  to  the  facts, 
I  need  not  describe.  And  how  great  must  be  the  personal 
guilt  of  him,  who  issued  such  a  river  of  baleful  influence,  and 
bid  its  waters  roll  over  a  score  of  nations  and  down  through 


OF    A   JUDGMENT    TO    COME.  63 

ten  centuries !  Who  is  competent  to  take  the  arithmetic  of 
that  man's  accountability  ?  Could  one  life  suffice  for  hmi  to 
suffer  all,  if  God  were  to  render  to  him  according  to  his  deeds  ? 
And  if  it  could,  history  gives  us  no  account  of  such  sufferings 
having  come  upon  him.  He  lived  and  died  next  to  deified  by 
millions.  Does  this  look  like  a  judgment  rendered  to  every 
man  according  to  his  works  in  the  present  world  ?  If  a  man 
may  do  so  much  mischief,  and  live  and  die  so  much  as  an  am- 
bitious man  would  wish  to  live  and  die,  in  spite  of  what  God's 
justice  can  do  in  its  last  efforts,  is  that  justice  worthy  of  the 
respect  of  the  world  ? 

Again,  that  this  world  is  not  the  scene  of  God's  last  and  com- 
plete retributions,  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  greatest  por- 
tion of  the  earth,  and  its  productions,  is  in  the  hands  of  un- 
godly men.  In  the  words  of  Job,  The  tabernacles  of  robbers 
prosper,  and  they  that  provoke  God  are  secure,  into  whose 
hands  God  bringeth  abundantly.  But  ask  now  the  beasts,  and 
they  shall  teach  thee,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  they  shall 
tell  thee,  or  speak  to  the  earth,  and  it  shall  teach  thee,  and  the 
fishes  of  the  sea  shall  declare  unto  thee, — to  whom  they  be- 
long ;  that  it  is  not  only  or  chiefly  for  the  righteous  few  that 
the  earth  is  productive.  But  rather  into  the  lap  of  proud  lux- 
urious despisers  of  God,  the  earth  and  sea  empty  their  most 
abundant  treasures.  God  fills  the  storehouse  out  of  which  all 
get  what  supplies  they  have,  and  orders  by  his  providence  all 
the  circumstances  which  give  to  individuals  any  advantages 
they  have  over  their  neighbors,  and  yet  he  makes  no  discrim- 
ination in  favor  of  the  godly  in  his  distribution  of  the  good 
things  of  this  life — sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust, 
employs  the  great  agents  in  nature  which  minister  sustenance 
to  man,  in  carrying  round  his  bounty  to  enemies  as  well  as 
friends,  and  surely  he  either  has  no  preference  for  righteous 
conduct,  which  he  will  manifest  by  appropriate  rewards,  or  this 
is  not  the  season  of  completing  his  retributions. 

And  then  God's  providential  arrangements  in  this  world  and 
the  state  of  this  world  by  his  permission,  are  such,  that  ster- 
ling integrity  is  oflen  a  check  to  the  course  of  worldly  ad- 


64  COLLATERAL  PROOFS 

vancernent.  Self-denial,  a  willingness  to  forego  worldly  ad- 
vantages for  obedience  to  God,  is  essential  to  christian  charac- 
ter. A  man,  if  he  will  follow  Christ,  must  take  up  his  cross — 
like  Moses,  must  refuse  to  be  called  the  Son  of  Pharaoh's 
daughter,  choosing  rather  to  suffer  affliction  with  the  people 
of  God,  than  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season ;  es- 
teeming the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treas- 
ures in  Egypt,  having  respect  unto  a  recompense  of  reward 
which  lies  beyond  the  bounds  of  time.  This  circumstance 
throws  the  elements  of  worldly  prosperity  chiefly  into  the 
hands  of  those  who  have  less  conscience  than  others.  That 
promotion  which  men  have  the  power  to  give,  falls  into  other 
hands,  than  those  of  the  upright,  both  because  he  may  not  seek 
it,  and  because  they  have  their  favorites  among  quite  another 
class.  A  thousand  "  wrigglers  into  place  "  have  the  advan- 
tage of  him.  And  then  wealth  is  usually  amassed  by  means 
that  godliness  forbids.  Such  in  short,  is  the  structure  of  so- 
ciety and  the  course  o'f  providence,  that  godliness  in  some  con- 
ditions requires  the  loss  of  all  things,  and  even  death  itself. 
And  can  such  a  scene  of  things  be  the  theatre  of  God's  last 
and  most  perfect  retributions  ?  If  it  be,  what  else  is  it  than  the 
proposing  of  rewards  on  a  broad  scale  for  the  encouragement 
of  sin.  If  wickedness  has  the  decided  advantage,  I  will  not 
say  as  to  real  happiness,  but  as  to  the  means  of  those  gratifi- 
cations which  depraved  men  most  sigh  for,  and  no  ill  effects 
are  to  be  felt  from  it  in  a  future  world  ;  so  far  from  being  pun- 
ished it  is  comparatively  rewarded,  if  there  be  no  retributions 
be}'ond  this  life. 

Again,  the  great  agents  of  human  suffering  are  quite  as  in- 
discriminating  as  to  their  objects.  Those  disasters  that  come 
upon  individuals  and  families  under  the  name  of  adverse  prov- 
idences, make  no  distinction  between  the  righteous  and  wick- 
ed. The  holiest  men  not  unfrequently  have  the  deepest  ex- 
perience of  this  kind  of  affliction.  The  liability  to  sickness 
and  death,  and  the  thousand  ills  that  flesh  is  heir  to,  extends 
to  all.  And  the  same  is  true  of  general  public  calamities.  If 
dfought,  famine,  pestilence,  earthquakes,  floods  or  fires  are 


OF  A  JUDGMENT  TO  COME.  65 

commissioned  to  spread  wide  disaster,  they  have  no  warrant 
except  in  a  few  miraculous  instances  to  exempt  the  righteous 
on  account  of  their  righteousness.  When  wars  and  revolu- 
tions sweep  over  nations,  the  distress  is  general  and  indiscrim- 
inate. And  they  carry  no  exact  and  appropriate  retributions 
to  individuals. 

Now,  in  this  stage  of  the  argument,  it  is  competent  for  me 
to  ask,  if  there  be  complete  retributions  in  this  world,  in  what 
facts  do  they  show  themselves?  We  have  traced  out  God's 
leading  modes  of  dealing  with  men,  and  find  them  not.  We 
look  abroad  on  the  moral  state  of  the  world  and  find,  that  the 
ends  of  punishment  are  far  from  being  -answered  by  all  the 
judgments  that  light  upon  the  world — that  the  greater  part  of 
men  are  ignorant  of  God,  and  of  his  retributions.  This  sup- 
posed complete  retribution  is  not  to  be  found  in  success  given 
to  the  enterprises  of  the  righteous  and  withheld  from  those  of 
the  wicked — not  in  any  marked  and  adequate  calam.ities  which 
have  come  upon  the  giants  in  crime,  the  authors  of  persecu- 
tions and  wars — not  in  any  superior  elements  of  worldly  hap- 
piness in  possession  of  the  righteous — not  in  righteousness 
opening  a  way  to  worldly  promotion,  wealth  and  distinction — 
not  in  any  partiality  of  the  great  distributors  of  God's  bounty 
and  the  great  agents  of  human  misery  in  favor  of  the  righteous. 
And  if  it  be  not  in  all  these,  we  ask  again,  where  is  it?  Surely 
it  is  in  nothing  that  addresses  itself  to  the  observation  of  men. 
Is  it  then  anything  which  passes  in  the  mind  and  internal  ex- 
perience ?  I  own  that  there  are  enjoyments  peculiar  to  the 
righteous,  and  suflTerings  of  mind  peculiar  to  the  guilty.  But 
that  these  are  not  so  distributed  as  to  amount  to  exa«;t  and  suf- 
ficient retributions,  it  were  easy  to  show.  That  sinners  of 
reckless  character,  and  a  seared  conscience,  having  all  the  means 
of  external  enjoyment,  endure  these  mental  sufferings  amount-, 
ing  to  adequate  punishment  for  all  their  sins,  is  a  matter  that 
wants  proof.  And  as  to  the  happiness  of  the  righteous,  their 
recompense  of  reward,  Mr.  B.  tells  us  that  all  the  enjoyments 
of  a  Paul  were  not  to  be  desired  in  preference  to  annihilation. 
That  it  was  far  better  for  him  to  die  than  live,  death  being  an 
6 


66  COLLATERAL  PROOFS,  ETC. 

extinction  of  being.  So  that  let  his  enjoyments  be  what  they 
may,  the  executed  malefactor  has  on  such  principles  a  better 
reward  than  he. 

Finally,  it  is  not  at  all  according  to  the  common  sense  of 
men,  that  all  in  this  world  aire  treated  according-  to  the  princi- 
ples of  retributive  justice.  If  a  universalist  minister,  in  preach- 
ing the  funeral  sermon  of  one  who  after  a  life  of  marked  af- 
flictions, had  como  to  some  appalling  death,  should  take  occa- 
sion to  inculcate  tiie  idea  that  those  afflictions  in  which  the 
deceased  was  distinguished  from  others  were  the  retributions 
for  guilt  in  respect  to  v/hich  he  was  distinguished,  and  that  the 
dealings  of  providence  in  all  cases  afforded  a  criterion  of  char- 
acter, he  would  find  his  doctrine  no  less  offensive  than  that 
of  the  need  of  repentance  towards  God  and  faith  in  our  Lord 
.Tesus  Christ,  as  a  means  of  escaping  the  second  death.  This 
is  a  doctrine  which  Job  with  all  his  patience  could  not  bear  in 
application  to  himself,  and  successfully  did  he  refute  it.  I  ap- 
peal to  the  history  of  your  own  impressions.  Have  you  been 
wont  to  estimate  the  character  of  your  neighbors  by  the  deal- 
ings of  providence  in  relation  to  them  ?  Have  you  regarded 
those  as  sinners  above  all  others,  who  have  suffered  above  all 
others  ?  When  you  have  seen  the  apparently  virtuous  poor, 
crushed  under  the  hand  of  providence,  enduring  affliction  af- 
ter affliction,  wave  after  wave  rolling  over  them,  and  deep  call- 
ing unto  deep  to  overwhelm  them,  have  you  said  in  your  hearts 
that  their  apparent  virtue  was  a  cheat, — that  they  were  the 
most  guilty  of  men?  And  when  you  have  seen  those  apparent- 
ly of  another  character  invested  with  affluence  and  splendor, 
feeling  no  changes,  and  having  no  bands  in  their  death,  have 
you  said  that  these  are  the  men  whom  God  approves  ?  Do  you 
forget  their  extortions,  oppressions,  sensualities,  profanity  and 
blasphemy,  and  regard  their  happy  life,  and  quiet  death,  as  the 
seal  of  heaven's  approval  of  their  character  ?  On  such  ground 
many  a  monster  of  iniquity  would  be  canonized  at  once.  Uni- 
versal observation  then  confirms  the  conclusions  from  scrip- 
ture, THAT  THERE  IS  A  JUDGMENT  TO  COME. 


CHAPTER    IV. 


TESTAMENT,  A  LIFE  TO  EE  ENJOYED  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE,  OR 
ONLY  IN  THIS  WORLD  ? 

The  world  will  be  indebted  of  Mr.  Balfour  for  all  the  instruc- 
tion they  will  get  by  the  discussion  of  the  above  question  ;  for 
who  but  he  would  ever  have  thought  of  making  it  a  question  ? 
He  deserves  the  credit  of  having  made  the  discovery,  that  the 
exigencies  of  his  system  demanded,  that  those  passages  which 
speak  of  eternal  life  be  interpreted'  as  meaning  something 
whose  existence  is  confined  to  this  world,  and  of  having  the 
courage  to  set  up  the  position,  and  to  dash  through  the  desper- 
ate course  of  criticism  needful  to  sustain  it.  And  the  idea  so 
felicitously  struck  out  by  him  has  already  become  classical  with 
Universalist  writers.  Mr.  Whittemore  has  strongly  insisted 
on  it  in  his  work  on  the  parables,  and  he  promulgates  it  through 
the  Trumpet,  the  leading  organ  of  New  England  Universal- 
ism.  The  reasons  why  this  position  is  taken  are  obvious. 
While  the  words  eternal  and  everlasting  are  seen  to  stand  con- 
nected with  a  life  enjoyed  beyond  the  grave,  and  enjoyed  as 
the  fruits  of  righteous  conduct  in  this  life,  it  is  not  easy  to 
make  the  reader  believe  that  the  same  words  applied  to  pun- 
ishment for  sin,  do  never  extend  the  punishment  beyond  the 
grave.  And  in  the  second  place,  it  is  the  fundamental  and  all- 
pervading  idea  of  modern  Universalism,  that  the  "future  state 
of  immortality  and  incorruption"  "cannot  in  the  nature  of 
things  be  effected  by  the  conduct  of  men  in  this  life."  (See 
Whittemore  p.  262.)  As  long  as  it  is  admitted  that  the  enjoy- 
ments of  heaven  are  in  any  sense  a  recompense  for  holiness  in 
this  life,  it  is  not  easy  to  be  convinced  that  sin  will   not  also 


68       ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE. 

have  its  appropriate  recompense  in  the  world  to  come.  So 
connected  are  the  two  ideas,  that  every  proof  that  righteous- 
ness in  this  hfe  is  rewarded  in  heaven,  lays  the  foundation  for 
an  inference  that  wickedness  will  be  punished  in  hell. 

Mr.  Balfour's  reasonings  upon  this  subject  are  found  in  his 
comment  upon  Matt.  19:  27.  These  I  will  notice  in  numerical 
order.  First,  Old  Testament  usage  shows  that  "everlasting 
life"  in  this  case  (and  he  intends  as  we  see  in  all  others)  means 
a  happiness  confined  to  the  age  of  the  christian  dispensation 
in  this  world.  And  what  is  this  iisus  loquendi  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament? In  one  case,  and  in  one  only,  the  phrase  is  there  used. 
This  one  example  does  not  create  a  strong  current  of  usage. 
But  strong  as  it  is,  it  is  all  against  him.  The  passage  is  this  : 
And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  ever- 
lasting contempt.  This  Mr.  B.  quotes  to  show  that  everlasting 
life,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Old  Testament,  means 
something  enjoyed  on  this  side  the  grave,  though  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  those  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake  to  this  everlasting  life.  But  this  passage  is  noticed  in 
another  part  of  this  work,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for  a 
more  full  refutation  of  Mr.  B.'s  comment  upon  it.  (See  Chap.  2.) 
Second,  Mr.  B.  refers  to  the  context  of  the  passage  in  Matt. 
19:  27.  for  his  second  proof  that  everlasting  life  does  not  mean 
everlasting  life,  where  the  enquirer  asks  what  good  thing  shall 
I  do  that  I  may  have  eternal  life.  And  to  prove  that  eternal 
life  in  the  context  does  not  mean  eternal  life,  he  refers  us 
again  to  Daniel's  use  of  it.  So  that  his  second  argument  is 
identical  with  the  first  and  may  have  the  same  answer.  His 
third  reason  is,  that  it  is  said  to  be  a  life  in  the  world  to  come. 
But  this  is  a  strange  reason  for  understanding  it  of  any  thing 
temporal.  It  is  strange  that  a  man  can  quote  Greek  and  He- 
brew so  profusely,  and  not  know  that  the  phrase,  world  to 
come,  and  age  to  come,  means  an  everlasting  age.  Suppose  we 
interpret  the  phrase  by  a  reference  to  the  Jews'  peculiar  no-, 
tions  of  the  age  to  come,  or  Messiah's  reign,  There  is  one 
thought  which  Mr.  B,  has  overlookedv /This  age  to  come,  ac-. 


ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE.  69 

cording  to  the  current  opinion  of  the  Jews,  was  to  commence 
by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  conquest  of  all  nations, 
and  their  subjugation  to  the  reign  of  Christ,  and  by  the  judg- 
ment of  the  world,  and  from  that  opening  it  was  to  extend 
on  without  end.  (See  Wahl's  Lexicon.)  So  if  we  admit  his 
premises,  the  conclusion  is  against  him.  This  fact  reduces 
to  waste  paper  sheets  of  his  learned  discussion  about  the  age 
to  come.  They  all  assume  that  that  age  was,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Jews,  a  limited  age.  But  this  is  the  very  point  to  be 
proved.  His  fourth  reason  is,  that  in  the  30th  verse  it  is  ad- 
ded— But  many  that  are  first  shall  be  last  and  the  last  shall  be 
first.  He  asks,  First  about  what?  About  entering  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  This  was  said  in  respect  to  the  case  of  the 
young  man,  to  show  that  publicans  and  harlots  might  go  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  before  him,  notwithstanding  his  morality. 
And  what  then  ?  Does  that  show,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  did 
not  include  the  inheritance  of  eternal  life  beyond  the  grave  ? 
In  the  fifth  place  he  says,  "  The  view  given  of  eternal  life  will 
be  confirmed  by  attending  to  the  general  usage  of  this  phrase 
in  the  New  Testament."  So  it  seems  the  general  usage  of 
the  phrase  eternal  and  everlasting  life,  goes  to  prove  that  in  a 
given  instance  it  means  a  temporal  good.  We  come  now  up- 
on broad  ground.  We  are  now  at  issue  wiih  Mr.  B.  whether 
in  all  cases  the  phrase  means  a  temporal  good.  For  he  asserts 
it  of  the  general  usage,  quotes  the  particular  passages  and 
says,  "  I  do  not  find  it  [eternal  life]  spoken  of  as  an  object  ex- 
pected after  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  or  once  mentioned 
as  equivalent  to  the  happiness  to  be  enjoyed  in  the  resur- 
rection state." 

Let  us  then  take  up  the  broad  question,  whether  there  is 
one  instance  where  eternal  or  everlasting  life  refers  to  a  hap- 
piness to  be  enjoyed  in  a  future  world.  For  proof  that  there 
is  none,  Mr.  B.  first  suggests,  that  if  it  does  refer  to  happiness 
in  a  future  state,  it  is  unaccountable  that  eternal  death  is  nev- 
er spoken  of  as  its  counterpart  to  the  wielded  in  a  future  state. 
But  this  is  equally  good  to  prove  the  opposite.  We  may  as 
well  say  it  does  not  mean  any  thing  enjoyed  in  this  life,  be- 

6* 


70       ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE. 

cause  eternal  death  is  never  spoken  of  as  the  counterpart  of 
everlasting  life,  but  eternal  death  is  not  once  named  in  the 
Bible.  In  the  next  place  he  says,  "  If  eternal  life  refers  to  the 
happiness  of  heaven  in  a  future  state,  how  happens  it  that  it  is 
so  often  spoken  about  as  a  thing  enjoyed  in  this  life  and  dwell- 
ing in  persons  by  believing  in  Jesus  ?"  That  is,  if  it  be  a  hap- 
piness in  heaven,  why  is  it  said  to  take  its  beginning  here  ?  Mr. 
Balfour  knew  or  ought  to  have  known,  that  his  opponents  insist 
upon  it  as  essential  that  eternal  life  take  its  commencement 
in  holiness  of  heart  in  this  world  ;  that  if  it  do  not  here,  it  never 
will  begin ;  and  surely  he  will  not  advance  as  a  difficulty  that 
which  we  consider  an  indispensable  part  of  the  gospel.  We 
doubt  not  but  that  eternal  life  begins  in  this  world  ;  but  that  it 
ends  here,  is  the  matter  that  wants  proof.  The  essence  of 
eternal  life  consists  in  knowing  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
he  hath  sent ;  or  in  holiness  of  heart  and  life.  This  is  the 
cause  of  all  spiritual  enjoyment  here,  and  must  in  the  nature 
of  things  be  carried  forward  into  the  future  world,  if  tfie  be- 
liever is  happy  there.  Further,  Mr.  B.  says,  eternal  life  was  a 
matter  of  hope  to  the  disciples.  But  pray  why  a  matter  of 
hope?  If  it  consisted  in  knowing  Christ  and  was  limited  to 
this  world,  it  could  not  be  a  matter  of  hope  but  of  complete 
fruition.  But  if  on  the  other  hand  they  had  it  here  only  in  its 
seminal  principles,  and  were  waiting  for  a  more  full  develop- 
ment in  the  coming  world,  then  it  was  a  matter  of  hope. 

Having  replied  to  Mr.  B.'s  proofs,  I  have  a  few  considera- 
tions of  my  own  to  suggest.  In  the  first  place,  if  the  passages 
in  question  do  not  prove  a  state  of  happiness  beyond  the  grave, 
there  is  no  proof  of  such  a  state.  After  taking  away  the  direct 
assertions  of  happiness  beyond  the  grave,  it  will  be  in  vain  to 
build  the  doctrine  upon  indirect  proofs.  Yet  Universalists  be- 
lieve there  is  such  a  state  of  happiness.  Mr.  Whittemore,  p. 
262,  gives  us  a  fair  specimen  of  their  treatment  of  this  sub- 
ject, first  excluding  the  proper  proofs  and  then  believing  with- 
out proof. :  "  Notwithstanding  the  everlasting  life  spoken  of 
in  the  New  Testament  is  applied  in  these  pages  to  that 
state  of  rest,  purity  and  joy  into  which  the  believers  of  the 


ETERNAL  LIFE, BEYOND  THE  GRAVE.  71 

gospel  entered  whenever  they  embraced  the  gospel,  the  au- 
thor takes  this  opportunity  to  say,  that  he  undoubtingly  be- 
lieves, that  a  future  state  of  immortality  is  revealed  in  the 
New  Testament."  I  Thus  he  takes  away  God's  assertions,  and 
substitutes  his  ow6  undoubting  belief  in  their  room.  If  he 
had  told  us  where  to  find  the  grounds  of  this  undoubting  be- 
lief, we  should  have  been  able  to  say  whether  one  haJf  the 
sophistry  applied  to  them,  which  has  been  applied  to  those 
passages,  might  not  set  them  also  aside. 

Again,  both  Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  W.  make  eternal  life  in  these  pas- 
sages mean  a  state  of  belief  in  Christ,  or  introduction  to  the  king- 
dom of  Christ,  a  state  of  holiness  or  spiritual  life.  Now  is  not 
this  holiness  or  belief,  call  it  what  you  will,  to  be  perpetuated 
in  the  eternal  world,  and  to  be  connected  with  the  happiness 
of  heaven  ?  Are  not  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  to  be  holy,  to 
be  believers,  to  be  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Whatever  havoc 
our  author  may  make  of  plain  language,  he  surely  will  not  pre- 
tend that  death  and  the  resurrection  are  to  work  any  chano-es, 
by  which  a  man  is  to  be  happy  in  the  presence  of  God  in  heaven 
without  holiness,  or  spiritual  life.  Of  course  then,  those 
who  attain  to  spiritual  life  here,  enjoy  it  there.  And  this  spir- 
itual life  is  called  eternal  life  here,  and  beginning  here  it  ex- 
tends on  through  eternity  ;  and  why  may  it  not  be  eternal  life 
there  ?  If  the  thing  is  the  same  in  both  states  of  being,  why 
does  not  the  name  apply  to  it  in  both,  especially  since  that 
name  of  its  own  power  expresses  nothing  short  of  both,  that  is, 
everlasting  life  ? 

But  let  us  look  at  a  few  examples  of  the  use  of  the  phrase 
eternal  life,  to  see  how  far  they  tally  with  Mr.  B.'s  notion.  As 
Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  so  also  shall  the 
the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  '  For  God  so  loved 
the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish  but  have  eternal  life.  He 
that  soweth  to  the  spirit  shall  of  the  spirit  reap  life  everlasting. 
Fight  the  good  fight  of  faith,  lay  hold  on  eternal  life.  And  this 
is  the  promise  which  he  hath  promised,  even  eternal  life.  What 


y   ^W  ^€^dxrx:^i^^'^:44 


72       ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE. 

good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life  ?  From 
these  specimens,  the  reader  may  judge  of  the  current  use  of 
the  phrases.  That  they  refer  to  anything  which  has  its  end  in 
this  life,  cannot  be  shown  from  the  context.  And  as  they  as- 
sert the  life  of  which  they  speak  to  be  eternal  or  everlasting, 
it  is  incumbent  on  the  Universalist  to  show  cause  why  the  ev- 
erlasting does  not  mean  everlasting.  It  is  not  enough  to  say 
that  the  word  is  sometimes  figuratively  applied  to  limited  ex- 
istences. It  must  be  sliown,  either  that  it  is  always  so  applied, 
or  that  that  is  its  current  and  more  general  use,  or  that  there 
are  in  the  cases  before  us  reasons  in  the  context,  for  departing 
from  the  general  use.  Neither  of  these  has  been  attempted. 
But  Mr.  B.  says  the  gospel  is  called  "the  everlasting  gospel. 
But  surely  none  ever  thought  that  the  gospel  is  to  be  preach- 
ed to  the  endless  ages  of  eternity."  Yet  the  gospel  is  with 
much  reason  called  everlasting,  because  its  elementary  prin- 
ciples, the  subject  matter,  and  its  efficacy  on  the  hearts  of  the 
redeemed  are  lasting  as  the  throne  of  God.  It  is  not  called 
the  gospel  everlastingly  'preached^  but  the  "  everlasting  gospel^ 
The  question  returns — When  everlasting  life  is  made  an  attri- 
bute of  a  soul  destined  to  unending  existence,  why  are  we  not 
to  understand  the  life  as  lasting  tis  long  as  the  soul  ?  This  life 
is  put  in  contrast  with  perishing,  spoken  of  as  future.  That 
whosoever  believeth  should  not  perish ;  but  there  would  be  no 
use  for  the  mode  of  contingency,  and  the  implied  future,  if  in 
every  sense  of  perishing  it  were  already  past  in  the  moment 
of  believing,  and  there  were  no  escape  from  a  death  yet  to 
come  upon  the  unbelieving.  And  when  Paul  to  Timothy  says, 
Figiit  the  good  fight  of  faith,  lay  hold  on  eternal  life,  he  was 
guilty  of  an  absurdity  on  Mr.  B.'s  hypothesis.  For  Timothy 
must  have  already  got  hold  of  eternal  life,  in  such  a  sense  that 
it  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  thing  yet  to  be  taken  hold  of  by 
him.  For  in  the  very  verse  next  preceding,  Paul  calls  him  a 
man  of  God.  If  he  were  then  a  man  of  God,  he  had  spiritual 
life,  and  could  with  no  propriety  be  exhorted  to  lay  hold  of 
what  he  already  had.  He  then  proceeds  to  direct  Timothy  to 
charge  them  that  are  rich  to  do  good,  that  they  be  rich  in  good 


ETERNAL  LIFE, BEYOND  THE  GRAVE.  73 

works,  ready  to  distribute,  willing  to  communicate,  laying  up 
in  store  for  themselves  a  good  foundation  against  the  time  to 
come,  that  they  may  lay  hold  on  eternal  life.  Here  eternal  life  is 
spoken  of  as  what  is  to  be  provided  for  by  good  works,  laid  in 
as  a  provision  for  the  future,  a  thing  not  now  in  complete  pos- 
session, but  to  be  secured  against  the  time  to  come. 

Again,  the  same  eternal  life  is  represented  as  a  boon,  which 
will  recompense  the  endurance  of  all  the  calamities  of  this  life. 
Christ  exhorted  his  hearers  to  cut  off  the  hand  or  foot,  or  to 
surrender  life,  if  need  be,  to  secure  it — told  them,  He  that  will 
save  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  that  will  lose  it  for  the  gospel's 
sake,  shall  find  it.  But  what  is  the  encouragement  held  out 
for  enduring  such  calamities  ?  Even  admitting  that  the  happi- 
ness which  those  early  christians  who  abandoned  all,  and  who 
risked  all,  that  a  hostile  world  could  inflict,  enjoyment  superior 
to  that  enjoyed  by  those  who  rejected  Christ,  was  such  as  would 
compensate  for  the  loss  of  a  right  eye,  or  for  any  temporal  suf- 
fering short  of  death,  yet  how  could  any  enjoyment  limited  to 
this  life  compensate  for  the  loss  of  life  ?  For  what  would  it  profit 
a  man  if  he  should  gain  the  whole  world — all  the  means  of  en- 
joyment experienced  by  all  the  world,  and  surrender  his  life 
before  he  entered  upon  the  enjoyment?  The  surrender  of  life 
would  render  the  reward  impossible.  If  there  be  no  reward 
beyond  the  grave,  hoAv  does  he  save  his  life  who  loses  it  ? 

But  the  parallel  passage  in  John  12:  25.  is  still  more  in  point. 
If  he  had  sought  to  throw  the  idea  into  language  the  most 
guarded  against  the  Universalist  interpretation,  he  could  not 
have  done  it  more  effectually.  He  that  loveth  his  life  shall 
lose  it,  and  he  that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep  it 
unto  life  eternal.  Here  life  eternal  is  put  in  contrast  with  life 
in  this  world.  And  according  to  the  notion  that  eternal  is 
something  confined  to  this  world,  the  passage  would  read — He 
that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep  it,  by  acquiring  by 
the  loss  that  eternal  life  Avhich  is  enjoyed  in  this  world.  Or  in 
other  words,  he  that  will  surrender  his  life  shall,  after  he  has 
surrendered  it,  come  in  possession  of  spiritual  life  in  this  world 
.^-that  is,  afler  he  is  dead,  he  shall  come  back  and  enjoy  life, 


74       ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE. 

But  here  the  Universalist  says  that  the  phrase  "this  world" 
means  only  "  this  age,"  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusaleai. 
Then  the  passage  reads — He  that  surrenders  life  in  this  period, 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  shall  have  eternal  life  by 
living  through  that  destruction.  That  is,  by  suffering  himself 
to  be  killed  before,  he  shall  escape  being  killed  then.  But  w« 
cannot  leave  to  Mr.  B.  even  the  comfort  of  such  an  interpreta- 
tion. For  the  word  translated  world  is  not  aio  n,  about  which 
Mr.  B.  has  made  the  discovery  that  in  some  cases  it  means 
"^agCf'^  but  kosm OS,  the  most  peculiar  and  appropriate  word 
for  v/orld.  This  interpretation  then  is  miserably  lame  in  every 
limb  and  joint. 

Again,  if  these  phrases  mean  no  more  than  some  advantages 
secured  in  this  life,  it  is  marvellous  that  that  word  eternal 
Jihould  be  in  such  free  and  frequent  use  as  descriptive  of  it. 
]f  it  occurred  but  once  ortv.'ice,  the  work  of  explaining  it  away 
would  not  be  so  hopeless.  But  the  phrase  in  bur  translation 
rendered  eternal  life  occurs  twenty-seven  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  phrase  rendered  everlasting  life  occurs 
thirteen  times.  Here  then  are  forty  instances  in  which  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  B.  the  liappiness  of  the  believer  is  essentially  called 
eternal  life.  Is  not  here  at  least  ground  for  a  presumption, 
that  that-  spiritual  life  is  eternal  in  its  nature.^  Surely,  if  that 
word  is  only  an  expletive  or  empty  flourish,  its  so  frequent  oc- 
currence v/ithout  a  guard  or  explanation,  must  tend  to  mislead 
the  reader.  Should  we  not  be  expected  to  believe  it  to  be  eter- 
nal life,  since  the  pen  that  was  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
ill  forty  instances  called  it  so  ? 

And  then,  what  meaning  has  the  word  eternal  as  qualifying 
.spiritual  life,  if  that  life  be  confined  to  this  jvorld  ;  the  Holy 
Ghost  docs  not  use  words  without  a  meaning.  This  word 
eternal,  is  fairly  presumed  to  be  used  as  an  adjective,  to  ex- 
press some  quality  of  that  something  which  Mr.  B.  calls  spirit- 
ual life.  But  pray  what  quality  ?  It  is  not  duration,  as  abun- 
dantly appears  from  Mr.  B.'s  remarks,  though  the  word  was 
made  to  express  duration.  It  is  not  spirituality,  for  it  has  no 
power  to  express  that  quality.     Mr.  B.  has  not  attempted  ta 


ETERNAL  LIFE, BEYOND  THE  GRAVE.  75 

sJiow  any  examples  in  which  it  is  synonymous  with  spiritual. 
We  have  been  told  what  it  does  not  mean  with  great  assur- 
ance, and  now  we  wait  to  be  told  what  it  does  mean — presum- 
ing that  it  is  not  used  forty  times  withuut  a  meaning.  Our  au- 
thor repeatedly,  and  with  an  air  of  triumph,  remarks  that  the 
exact  phrase,  eternal  death,  is  not  used  in  the  Bible.  But  if  it 
had  been,  and  had  been  used  in  forty  instances,  what  would  it 
avail  with  such  an  interpreter?  Forty  instances  of  the  use  of  eter- 
nal life  in  every  variety  of  forms,  cannot  convince  him  that  the 
writers  meant  eternal  life  ;  and  no  more  would  as  many  repeti- 
tions of  the  phrase  eternal  death,  satisfy  him  that  eternal  death 
was  meant.  The  one  could  as  easily  be  made  to  evaporate  in 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  the  other. 

I  call  now  upon  Mr.  B.  to  show  me  a  single  truth  of  the  Bi- 
ble that  is  revealed  witii  more  clearness  and  irresistible  force, 
than  the  truth  that  there  is  eternal  life  for  the  righteous  beyond 
the  grave,  is  revealed  in  those  forty  passages.  Give  me  the 
same  liberty  to  distort  and  pervert  plain  language,  and  I  will 
engage  to  prove  or  disprove  any  thing, — prove  that  the  Bible 
neither  teaches  nor  intends  to  teach  any  thing.  Yet  this  no- 
tion, that  these  phrases  always  mean  a  temporal  good,  is  amain 
pillar  in  Mr.  B.'s  system,  and  I. have  given  it  a  more  extended 
notice  than  it  v/ould  otherwise  demand,  that  the  reader  may  see 
how  glaringly  unsound  are  his  main  positions.  And  it  is  well 
to  notice,  how  the  Scriptures  are  here  made  to  bend  to  the 
convenience  of  his  system.  Eternal  life  in  a  future  state  is 
not  denied.  But  it  so  happens  that  those  passages  which 
most  directly  reveal  the  doctrine,  are  in  such  a  shape  as  to  con- 
firm by  parity  of  reason  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  al- 
so. The  witnesses  testify  fully  and  distinctly  in  favor  of  a 
doctrine  received,  but  in  telling  their  story  they  let  out  an  un- 
welcome truth.  And  so  they  must  be  shoved  from  the  stand, 
and  the  main  matters  of  their  testimony  be  assumed  without 
proof.  I  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  my  Unive-rsalist  readers, 
whether  these  witnesses  to  the  salvation  of  men,  would  have 
been  silenced — whether  these  texts  would  have  been  so  in- 
terpreted, did  not  the  wants  of  their  system  require  it.     But  'f 


76       ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE. 

I  am  correct  in  this  opinion,  we  have  here  a  sickening  view  of 
the  workings  of  perverted  mind  laboring  to  evade  the  truth  of 
God.  That  man  will  deal  thus  with  the  word  of  God,  in  a 
matter  that  involves  his  own  eternal  well  being,  and  the  well 
being  of  those  whose  characler  and  destinies  are  moulded  by 
the  influence  of  his  pen — that  immortal  man  should  be  willing 
to  risk  his  salvation  on  such  strained  and  flimsy  evasions,  is 
marvellous  indeed.  Yet  the  system  of  Universalism  is  con- 
structed throughout,  of  materials  not  unlike  to  these. 

It  is  essential  also  to  Mr.  B.'s  system,  as  we  have  observed, 
that  the  happiness  of  heaven  be  regarded  in  no  sense  as  a  re- 
compense for  righteousness  in  this  life.  That  there  is  no 
punishment  in  the  future  world,  cannot  be  credited  as  long  as 
it  is  granted  that  any  are  there  rewarded  for  the  conduct  of 
this  life.  Let  us  then  take  up  the  position  that  the  future  con- 
dition of  men  is  not  to  be  affected  by  their  conduct  in  this  life, 
and  bring  it  in  brief  terms  to  the  test  of  scripture.  Math.  5: 
12.  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  g7'eat  is  your  reward  in 
heaven,  for  so  persecuted  they  the  prophets.  Luke  6:  28.  Re- 
joice ye  in  that  day  and  leap  for  joy,  for  your  reward  is  great  in 
heaven.  Math.  G:  1.  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms  befo^-e 
men  to  be  seen  of  them,  otherwise  ye  have  no  reward  of  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.  2  Thess.  1:  6.  Seeing  it  is  a  right- 
eous thing  with  God  to  recompense  tribulation  to  them  which 
trouble  you  ;  and  to  you,  who  are  troubled,  rest  with  us,  when 

the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven, when  he 

shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints  and  to  be  admired  in 
all  them  which  believe.  2.  Tim.  2:  12.  If  we  suffer,  we  shall 
also  reign  with  him.  2.  Tim.  4:  7.  I  have  fought  a  good  fight. 
I  have  finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith,  henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the 
Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day ;  and  not 
to  me  only,  but  to  all  them  also  that  love  his  appearing.  Heb. 
11:  9.  By  faith  he  sojourned  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a 
strange  country,  dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  Isaac  and  Ja- 
cob, the  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  promise  ;  for  he  looked  for 
a  city  Avhich  hath  foundations,  Avhosc  builder  and  maker  is 


ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE.  77 

God.  Verse  13.  These  all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received 
the  promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  off,  and  were  persuad- 
ed of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were 
strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  Verse  16.  But  now  they 
desire  a  better  country,  that  is,  a  heavenly  ;  wherefore  God  is 
not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God,  for  he  hath  prepared  for 
them  a  city.  Verse  35.  And  others  were  tortured,  not  accept- 
ing deliverance,  that  they  might  obtain  a  better  resurrection. 
Rev.  2:  7.  To  him  that  overcometh  will  I  give  to  eat  of  the 
tree  of  life,  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  paradise  of  God.  Verse 
10.  Be  thou  faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown 
of  life.  Rev.  3:  5.  He  that  overcometh,  shall  be  clothed  in 
white  raiment,  and  I  will  not  blot  out  his  name  out  of  the  book 
of  life,  but  I  will  confess  his  name  before  my  father  and  before 
his  angels.  Rev.  14:  13.  Blessed  are  the  dead  who  die  in  the 
Lord  from  henceforth  ;  yea,  saith  the  spirit,  that  they  may  rest 
from  their  labors,  and  their  works  do  follow  them.  Rev.  21: 
7.  He  that  overcometh,  shall  inherit  all  things,  and  I  will  be 
his  God  and  he  shall  be  my  son.  But  the  fearful  and  unbeliev- 
ing, and  the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and  whoremongers, 
and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  shall  have  their  part  in 
the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone,  which  is  the 
second  death.  But  it  is  not  worth  the  while  further  to  extend 
these  quotations  :  I  should  transcribe  no  small  part  of  the  Bi- 
ble, were  I  to  give  all  the  texts  which  imply  the  doctrine.  I 
chose  to  present  these  marked  quotations  from  the  word  of 
God,  without  comments  of  my  own,  to  show  how  strong  and 
unequivocal  is  their  testimony,  that  a  reward  is  reserved  in 
heaven  for  the  righteous. 

The  eternal  life  of  the  gospel,  is  a  matter  of  distinct  revela- 
tion. And  that  the  universalist  system  goes  to  annihilate  that 
eternal  life  which  is  brought  to  light  in  the  gospel,  and  substi- 
tutes the  product  of  human  conjecture  and  hope  in  its  stead,  is 
reason  enough  for  declining  the  proffered  advantage.  If  the 
salvation  of  the  soul  be  not  the  end  of  ourfaith — if  the  alter- 
native of  heaven  or  perdition,  be  not  broadly  placed  before  us 
in  the  Bible — if  the  pages  of  the  gospel  do  not  glow  with  a 
7 


78       ETERNAL  LIFE,  BEYOND  THE  GRAVE. 

light  from  a  heaven  to  come,  and  if  that  heaven  be  not  the  prize 
of  our  high  calling,  the  crown  reserved  for  the  victor  in  the 
christian  warfare,  the  Bible  is  the  most  deceptive  of  all  books. 
If  the  Bible  means  as  it  says,  and  those  passages  referred  to  in 
this  chapter  are  to  be  understood  according  to  honest  common 
sense  principles  of  interpretation,  eternal  life  is  a  matter  of 
unequivocal  revelation — made  certain  to  the  believer  but  by  di- 
rect assertions  of  inspiration  ;  and  this  is  an  eternal  life  which 
has  a  beginning  in  this  world,  at  least,  in  seminal  principles. 
There  must  needs  be  here  a  sowing  to  the  spirit,  if  hereafter 
we  would  reap  life  everlasting.  Accordingly  it  is  truly  said  to 
the  believer,  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.  It  matters 
not  essentially  in  what  world  a  man  is  ;  in  proportion  as  he  has  a 
spiritual  and  holy  temper,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  him. 
That  spiritual  joy  in  which  mainly  consist  the  rewards  of 
heaven,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  well  going  machine- 
ry of  a  well  conditioned  soul.  And  this  fact  solves  all  the 
mystery  of  eternal  life,  being  asserted  as  a  thing  whose  pos- 
session commences  on  this  side  the  grave,  as  well  as  that 
which  is  to  be  yet  attained  in  its  full  perfection  in  that  world, 
where  all  the  jarrings  of  sinful  passion  are  excluded.  And 
this  is  the  reason  why  only  the  pure  in  heart  can  see  God  ; 
why  without  holiness  no  man  can  see  the  Lord ;  why  there 
is  no  heaven  for  man  unless  it  be  begun  before  those  who 
are  filthy  are  adjudged  and  confirmed  to  be  filthy  still — why 
there  is  no  way  to  die  the  death  of  the  righteous  without  liv- 
ing the  life  of  the  righteous. 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  signification  of  the  words  everlasting,  eternal, 
forever,  &c.,  as  applied  to  the  punishment  of  the 

WICKED. 

On  this  subject,  Mr.  B.  has  given  his  views  at  large,  both  in 
his  second  Inquiry  and  in  his  Reply  to  Stuart's  Exegetical  Es- 
says.    And  I  shall  attempt  in  this  chapter,  either  directly  to 
notice  or  virtually  to  answer  every  thing  that  is  material  in  his 
discussion  of  the  subject  in  both.     But  no  reader  of  this  reply 
to  Stuart,  will  expect  me  to  wade  through  the  whole  mass  of 
irrelevant  matter,  sophistical  evasions,  and  appeals  to  the  pas- 
sions and  prejudices  of  the  Universalists.     There  is  very  little 
in  it  which  may  not  safely  be  left  to  any  unprejudiced  mind, 
even  of  limited  information.     Mr.  B.  labors  the  proof  that  Mr. 
Stuart's  Essays  were  intended  as  an  answer  to  his  writings, 
though  Mr.  S.  had  expressly  disclaimed  all  polemical  referen- 
ces, except  in  one  instance  named,  and  that,  not  Mr.  B. ;  as 
though  it  were  an  important  object  gained,  to  have  been  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Stuart.     But  the  question  whether  Mr.  Stu- 
art's Essays  were  intended  as  an  answer  to  Balfour,  is  almost 
the  only  question  fairly  at  issue,  in  the  whole  reply,  that  he  at- 
tempts to  meet  by  direct  and  logical  proofs.     Pie  talks  about 
it  and  about  it,  through  more  than  two  hundred  pages,  but  he 
does  not  begin  to  reply  to  the  proofs  presented  by  Mr.  Stuart. 
For  the  sake  of  bringing  as  much  of  the  argument  as  may 
be  into  as  little  compass  as  possible,  by  way  of  abbreviation,  I 
shall,  on  this  subject,  make  use  of  Mr.  Stuart's  classification 
of  passages  in  part,  referring  the  reader  to  his  Essays  for  ma- 
ny important  views  of  the  subject,  which  do  not  properly  come 
within  the  design  of  this  chapter.    1  do  not  design  in  this  place 


80  SIGNIFICATION  OF  T^IE  WORDS 

to  consider  the  subject  with  much  reference  to  those  who  ad- 
mit a  limited  punishment  in  the  future  world,  though  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  arguments  presented,  Avill  go  with  equal  force 
against  both  systems  of  Universalism.  If  it  be  proved  that  the 
wicked  are  punished  through  a  proper  eternity,  Mr.  Balfour's 
system  of  no  future  punishment  of  course  is  excluded.  And 
we  have  now  particular  reference  to  that  system. 

The  question  now  before  us,  turns  on  the  signification  of  two 
words  in  the  New  Testament,  A  ion,  and  its  derivative  Aion- 
i*  0  5,  rendered  everlasting,  eternal,  forever,  &c.  Mr.  Stuart 
has  given  every  instance  of  the  use  of  these  words,  arranged 
in  different  classes,  according  to  their  signification.  And  I 
shall  first  present  the  substance  of  this  part  of  his  investiga- 
tion ;  considering  by  the  way,  Mr.  B.'s  reply.  His  first  class 
of  meanings  of  a  i  o  n,  is  that  of  "  An  indefinite  period  of  time, 
time  without  limitation,  ever,  forever,  time  without  end,  and 
eternity,  all  in  relation  to  the  future."  This  class  is  subdivided 
into  those,  in  the  first  place,  "  which  have  reference  to  God  or 
Christ,  to  what  belongs  to  him,  or  is  rendered  to  him,  or  will  be 
rendered  to  him,  and  which,  from  his  nature,  and  the  nature  of 
things,  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  an  end."  As  Rom.  1:  25. 
The  Creator  who  is  blessed  forever.  Rom.  9:  5.  God  over  all, 
blessed  forever.  Rom.  11:  36.  To  whom  be  glory  forever.  And 
the  following,  making  in  all,  twenty-two  instances.  Rom.  16: 
27.  2Cor.ll:31.  Gal.  1:5.  Eph.3:21.  Phil. 4:20.  lTim.l:17. 
2  Tim.  4:  18.  Heb.  3:  21.  1  Peter  1:  25.  1  Peter  4:  11.  1  Peter 
5:  11.  1  Peter  3:  18.  Rev.  1:  6.  1:  18.  4:  9.  4:  10.  7:  12.  10:  6. 
15:7.  Here  the  instances  are  quoted,  and  the  reader  left  to 
judge  for  himself,  whether  in  these  cases  the  words  have  not 
the  force  ascribed  to  them.  Mr.  B.  does  not  deny  but  that 
these  meanings  are  properly  given.  But  will  have  us  to  un- 
derstand that  if  the  word  "means  eternity  in  any  case,  it  is  not 
from  the  native  meaning  of  the  word,"  but  from  the  object  with 
which  it  is  associated.  But  pray  how  do  we  learn  the  native 
meaning  of  a  word  but  by  its  prevailing  use,  or  the  objects 
with  which  it  is  generally  associated  ?  And  the  inquiry  now 
is  respecting  its  native  meaning,  as  deducible  from  its  use  in 


connexion  with  other  objects,  than  that  of  punishment. 
Mr.  B.'s  assumption,  that  the  object  to  which  the  qualifying 
word  is  applied  must  determine  what  the  qualification  is, — that 
the  object  to  which  a  word  expressing  duration  is  applied,  must 
determine  the  extent  of  the  duration,  in  a  given  case,  sepa- 
rately considered, — would  render  such  qualifying  words  ut- 
terly useless.  If  the  duration  is  expressed  in  the  object  itself, 
why  use  that  word  eternal  which  is  so  pliable  as  to  mean  any- 
thing or  nothing,  according  to  the  object  to  which  it  is  applied  ? 
Each  word  is  supposed  to  have  of  itself  a  meaning,  and  this 
meaning  discoverable  by  the  objects  to  which  it  is  CMn-e??i/?/ ap- 
plied. And  the  inquiry  is  how,  and  to  what  objects,  is  it  cur- 
rently applied. 

Mr.  Stuart's  second  class  of  texts,  under  this  head,  are  "  those 
which  have  reference  to  the  happiness  of  the  pious,  especially 
to  their  happiness  in  heaven,"  as  follows:  John  6:  51.  If  any 
man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live  forever.  John  8:  51.  If  a 
man  shall  keep  my  sayings,  he  shall  never  see  death.  John  6: 
58.  8:  52.  10:28.  11:  26.  2  Cor.  9:9.  1  John  2:  17.  Rev.  22:  5. 
Here  Mr.  B.  makes  it  an  objection  that  Mr.  S.  passes  these 
texts  without  comment,  assuming  that  they  refer  to  the  happi- 
ness of  heaven.  The  matter  is  simply  this.  Mr.  Stuart  quotes 
these  texts  and  lodges  the  appeal  with  the  common  sense  of 
every  reader,  if  they  do  not  refer  to  the  happiness  of  the  future 
world.  Deeming  it  so  clear  that  they  have  that  reference,  he 
chooses  to  leave  them  without  comment ;  or  rather  he  asserts 
that  they  have  that  meaning,  and  challenges  contradiction, 
leaving  the  matter  in  such  a  shape,  that  every  man  can  judge 
for  himself  as  to  the  soundness  of  his  premises.  That  Mr.  Bal- 
four has  made  it  a  question  whether  these  and  such  like  pas- 
sages refer  to  the  happiness  of  heaven,  none  will  wonder,  after 
having  noticed  his  views  of  the  subject  of  eternal  life.  But  yet 
every  reader  is  supposed  to  have  common  sense,  and  to  be  ca- 
pable of  judging  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  word  in  such 
cases.  And  the  appeal  is  from  his  sophistries  to  their  common 
sense. 

Mr.  Stuart's  third  class  of  meanings,  under  tnis  head,  is  that 
7* 


82  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  WORDS 

of  a  period  unlimited  or  without  bounds,  i.  e.  ever  and  (with  a 
negative)  never.  As  Matt.  25:  19.  Let  there  be  no  fruit  of  thee 
forever.  And  Mark  11:  14.  the  same.  Mark  3:  29.  Whosoever 
shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  never  forgiveness. 
Luke  1:  33.  He  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  David  forever. 
Luke  1:  55.  John  4:  14.  John  8: 35.  12:34.  13:8.  14:16.  1  Cor. 
8:  13.  Heb.  1:  8.  5:  6.  6:20.  7:  17.  7:  21.  7:  24.  7:  28.  33:8.  2 
John  5:  2.  Rev.  5:  12.  11:  15.  Mr.  B.  here  comments  upon  the 
word  forever,  in  relation  to  the  curse  upon  the  fig-tree.  But  as 
lie  does  not  deny  that  it  means  unlimited  time,  his  remarks  are 
nothing  in  point ;  for  ho  admits  all  that  Stuart  asserts.  He  al- 
so calls  in  question  the  propriety  of  classing  the  above  passage, 
which  speaks  of  Christ  reigning  over  the  house  of  David  for- 
ever, under  this  head,  and  finds  fault  with  Mr.  Stuart's  reasons 
fordoing  it.  Though  there  is  a  sense  in  which  Christ's  media- 
torial kingdom  will  come  to  an  end,  Mr.  Stuart  took  the  ground 
that  there  is  also  a  more  spiritual  sense,  in  which  it  has  no  end — 
in  which  it  will  continue  after  the  appropriate  reign  of  the 
Messiah  has  ceased.  Because  other  passages  ascribe  endless 
dominion  to  Christ,  and  because  in  this  verse  it  is  added.  And 
of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.  To  this  latter  proof  Mr. 
B.  replies,  that  it  must  be  a  limited  forever,  because  it  is  said, 
He  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  David,  which  must  be  confin- 
ed to  this  world.  But  he  ought  to  know,  that  the  house  of  Da- 
vid had  become  as  much  a  name  for  the  head  of  the  church,  as 
Israel  had  for  the  church  itself.  Besides,  if  Mr.  B.  insists  upon 
a  literal  understanding  of  the  phrase,  house  of  David,  he  is  in- 
volved in  a  difficulty.  Christ  never  did  reign  over  the  literal 
house  of  David.  In  the  same  sense  is  it  true  that  Christ  will 
reign  over  the  house  of  David,  in  the  heavenly  world,  as  that 
he  reigned  over  it  in  this  world.  That  the  forever  in  this  verse 
is  synonymous  with  endless^  is  beyond  question ;  inasmuch  as 
it  is  added — And  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.  And 
that  it  means  endless,  witliout  end,  or  limit,  is  what  is  asserted 
in  the  classification. 

Mr.  Stuart's  next  class  contains  those  passages,  in  which  the 
word  refers  to  past  time,  and  that  an  indefinite  or  unlimited  pe- 


EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     85 

riod.  They  are  the  following :  Luke  1:  70.  As  he  spoke  by 
the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  which  have  been  since  the 
world  began.  Acts  15:  18.  Known  unto  God  are  all  his  works 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  And  1  Cor-  2:  7.  Eph.  3:  9. 
3:  11.  Col.  1:  26.  John  9:  32.  To  this  class  Mr.  B.  makes  no 
objections. 

The  next  class  is  of  those  passages  wherein  the  word  has  a 
tacit  reference  to  the  idea  of  age,  or  period  of  time,  and  also  a 
particular  reference  to  quantity  of  time,  as  a  whole,  either  past 
or  future — as  we  speak  in  English  of  the  patriarchal  age  or 
ante-diluvian  age.  Eph.  2:  7.  That  in  the  ages  to  come  he 
might  show  the  exceeding  riches  of  his  grace.  Heb.  6:  5. 
Tasted  the  good  word  of  God  and  powers  of  the  world  to  come. 
And  1  Cor.  10: 11.  Mr.  B.  gives  no  reasons  why  these  texts 
may  not  be  so  arranged- 

Mr.  Stuart  next  introduces  his  second  general  class  of  mean- 
ings, in  which  the  word  has  a  secondary  and  peculiar  sense, 
borrowed  from  the  Hebrew,  viz.  that  of  world,  as  present  world, 
or  future  world.  The  first  subdivision  is  of  those  which  imply 
world  present,  or  future,  with  a  special  reference  to  time  or 
duration.  Matt.  12:  32.  Shall  not  be  forgiven,  neither  in  this 
world  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come.  Mark  10:  30.  Shall  re- 
ceive an  hundred  fold  in  the  present  time,  and  in  the  world  to 
come,  life  everlasting.  And  Luke  18:  20. 

In  the  next  place,  we  have  a  class  in  which  the  word  denotes 
the  Avorld,  wuth  its  cares,  business,  temptations,  &c.  Matt.  13: 
22.  The  cares  of  this  world  and  the  deceitfulnes's  of  riches 
choke  the  word.  Mark  4:  19.  Luke  16:  8.  20:  34.  Rom.  12:  2. 
1  Cor.  1:20.  2:6.  2:8.  2  Cor.  4:  4.  Gal.  ]:4.  2  Tim.  4:  10. 
Titus  2:  12. 

The  next  class  is  made  of  those,  in  which  the  word  denotes 
the  world  itself  as  an  object  of  actual  existence,  and  this  either 
present  or  future.  Matt.  13:  40.  So  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  the 
world.  Mark  13:  49.  Matt.  24:  3.  What  shall  be  the  sign  of 
thy  coming,  and  of  the  end  of  the  world  ?  Matt.  28:  20.  I  am 
with  you  always  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Luke  20:  35.  1 
Cor.  3:  18.  Eph.  2:21.  1  Tim.  1:  17.  6:  17.  Heb.  I:  2.  Heb.  2: 


84  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  WORDS 

3.  What  Mr.  B.  has  to  say  in  respect  to  the  above  classes, 
being  differently  interpreted  by  some  orthodox  writers,  and  by 
Balfour's  Second  Inquiry — and  being  without  examples  of  such 
usage,  is  welcome  to  pass  for  what  it  is  worth.  It  is  all  an  at- 
tempt to  throw  dust  in  the  eyes  of  readers  that  do  not  under- 
stand the  nature  of  philological  inquiries.  The  design  of  ex- 
hibiting these  passages,  in  such  a  form,  without  comment,  ex- 
cept here  and  there  an  explanatory  remark,  is  that  every  reader 
may  see  Avith  his  own  eyes,  untrammelled  by  comments,  and 
judge  by  the  connexion  and  subject,  whether  or  not  the  writer 
is  correct  in  his  classification.  If  Mr.  B.  had  employed  him- 
self in  proving  the  incorrectness  of  the  classification,  instead 
of  quoting  some  conceits  of  some  orthodox  writers,  and  calling 
for  more  comments,  he  would  have  labored  more  to  the  point. 

The  next  class  contains  a  peculiar  meaning  of  this  word, — 
that  of  a  generation  of  men  considered  either  as  to  the  time  in 
which  they  live  or  as  to  the  persons  themselves.  Eph.  2:  2.  Ye 
walked  according  to  the  course  of  this  world. 

Next,  under  a  distinct  head,  are  arranged  all  the  cases  in 
which  the  word  is  used  in  reference  to  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked.  2  Pet.  2:  17.  To  whom  the  mist  of  darkness  is  re- 
served forever.  Jude  13.  For  whom  is  reserved  the  blackness  of 
darkness  forever.  Rev.  14:  11.  The  smoke  of  their  torment  as- 
cendeth  up  forever  and  ever.  19:  3.  The  smoke  of  her  torment 
ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever.  20:  10.  And  they  shall  be  tor- 
mented continually,  forever  and  ever. 

The  above  embrace  all,  except  a  few  instances  in  which  the 
genuineness  of  the  text  has  been  disputed.  Here  again  we 
have  one  of  Mr.  B.'s  calls  for  comments.  But  Mr.  Stuart  as 
yet  draws  no  conclusion  from  the  texts.  But  he  only  says  they 
relate  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  which  Mr.  B.  will  not 
deny  :  whether  that  punishment  be  endless,  is  the  question  to 
be  settled,  when  all  the  evidence  is  brought  together.  The 
mere  throwing  of  these  texts  together,  in  this  connexion,  with 
a  special  request  that  the  reader  would  suspend  his  judgment, 
seems  to  throw  the  man  into  a  panic,  and  sets  him  invoking 
the  aid  of  his  Second  Inquiry,  as  if  he  were  conscious  that  eve- 


EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     85 

ry  reader  would  find  it  impossible  to  suspend  his  judgment. 
Having  laid  out  these  passages  according  to  their  classes,  with 
an  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  the  reader,  for  the  correct- 
ness of  the  classifications,  Mr.  S.  proceeds  to  sum  up  the  re- 
sult, and  he  finds  the  whole  number  of  instances  of  the  use  of 
the  word  to  be  ninety-five.     In  sixteen  of  these,  it  is  used  in 
ascriptions  of  praise  to  God  and  Christ.     In  five,  it  is  applied  to 
God  or  Christ,  who  liveth  forever.      In  four,  it  is  employed  to 
designate  the  dominion  of  Christ.     In  one,  it  is  said  the  Word 
of  God  abideth  forever.    In  nine,  it  is  applied  to  the  future 
happiness  of  the  saints.    In  eighteen,  it  designates  the  sense 
of  ever,  with  the  negative  never.  In  seven,  indefinite  time  past. 
In  three,  age  in  the  sense  of  dispensation.  In  three,  the  world, 
presenter  future,  with  reference  to  a  period  of  duration.    In 
twelve,  the  world  as  a  scene  of  trials.  In  eleven,  the  world  as  a 
place  of  residence  for  men.  In  one,  generation  of  men.  By  com- 
paring these  together,  he  finds  that  those  which  have  a  simple 
respect  to  future  time,  forty-nine  out  of  the  whole,  besides 
those  which  relate  to  punishment,  are  all  employed  in  the  sense 
of  unlimited  duration.      The  seven  which  relate  to  time  past, 
designate  either  past  eternity,  or  a  long  and  unlimited  dura- 
tion.    And  the  four  which  relate  to  the  dominion  of  Christ,  un- 
derstood either  way,  must  designate  at  least  a  future  indefi- 
nite period,  if  not  a  proper  eternity.       And  the  remaining 
thirty  cases  designate  Avorld  in  our  sense  of  that  word.     From 
these  premises  he  brings  the  conclusion,  that  there  are  fifty-five 
in  which  the  word  certainly  means  unlimited  duration,  either 
future   or  past,    besides   those  which   relate   to  punishmefit. 
And  there  is  no  case  in  which  it  is  employed  to  designate  a 
definite  period.    Hence  he  concludes,  that  when  it  simply  marks 
time,  in  the  New  Testament,  it  marks  indefinite  unlimited  time. 
All  the  other  instances  wherein  the  word  signifies  Avorld,  ex- 
cept those  which  speak  of  the  future  world  as  a  state  of  retri- 
bution, are  foreign  to  the  question  about  future  punishment. 

Mr.  B.'s  reply  to  this  summing  up  of  the  matter,  is,  in  the  first 
place,  that  Mr.  S.  spends  more  pages  in  summing  up,  than  in 
explaining  the  texts.     Secondly,  that  he  differs  from  other  Or> 


86  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  WORDS 

thodox  writers  with  regard  to  a  number  of  the  texts.  Thirdly, 
that  this  way  of  proof  is  that  of  mere  assertion.  Fourthly,  that 
a  ion  is  oftener  used  in  the  sense  of  world,  than  in  application 
to  future  punishment.  Fifthly,  that  he  knows  of  no  critic  or 
commentator  who  agrees  with  Mr.  S.,  that  "in  three  cases  it  is 
apj)lied  to  designate  age  or  dispensation."  Sixthly,  that  the 
Talmudic  and  Rabbinic  writers  are  called  in  to  explain  about 
one  third  of  the  ninety-five  texts.  Of  the  force,  fairness,  and 
relevancy  of  such  suggestions,  in  this  place,  the  reader  will 
judge. 

The  meaning  of  Aionio  s.  By  the  same  method  of  classifi- 
cation, the  steps  of  which  I  will  not  detail  in  this  place,  Mr.  Stu- 
art gets  the  result,  that  there  are  sixty-six  cases  in  which  the 
word  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament ;  of  these  fifty-one  are 
used  in  relation  to  the  happiness  of  the  righteous — two  in  rela- 
tion to  God  or  his  glory — six  are  of  a  miscellaneous  nature — 
and  seven  relate  to  the  subject  of  future  punishment.  That 
in  all  instances  in  which  it  relates  to  future  time,  it  is  certain 
that  they  designate  unlimited  duration,  (excepting,  of  course, 
those  which  relate  to  punishment.)  That  if  they  have  not  that 
meaning,  the  Scriptures  do  not  decide  that  God  is  eternal,  nor 
that  the  happiness  of  the  righteous  is  without  end,  nor  that  the 
covenant  of  grace  will  always  remain. 

Here  Mr.  B.  raises  a  hue  and  cry,  about  Talmudic  and  Rab- 
binic writers  being  mentioned.  Though  they  were  mentioned 
by  Mr.  S.  only  by  way  of  explaining  a  fact,  which  fact  was  to 
be  proved  from  other  sources.  Mr  S.  tells  us  that  the  ancient 
Hebrews  had  no  adjective,  derived  from  Olim;  but  that  the 
Talmudic  writers  formed  one,  and  that  this  was  equivalent  to 
the  Greek  aienios.  But  he  makes  no  reliance  on  this  asser- 
tion, as  proving  what  is  the  meaning  of  aionios.  He  proves 
that  meaning,  by  quoting  the  passages  wherein  it  is  used.  But 
here  Mr.  B.  suffers  his  indignation  to  kindle  ;  calls  for  divine 
authority,  which  the  Talmudic  writers  had  to  make  such  an 
adjective,  as  if  lexicons  were  inspired  books:  and  he  intimates 
the  sinfulness  of  the  thought,  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  would 
use  words  in  the  same  sense,  that  the  Talmudic  writers  did. 


,       EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     87 

And  this  is  a  fair  specimen  of  his  mode  of  argument  through  the 
whole  book.  In  respect  to  the  class  of  passages  which  Mr.  S. 
makes  to  refer  to  the  happiness  of  heaven,  Mr.  B.  asks — The 
happiness  of  the  righteous  where  ?  and  says  that  they  say  noth- 
ing about  their  endless  happiness  in  heaven.  To  this  I  answer, 
Mr.  B.  may  choose  his  place  where  he  will  locate  it ;  it  is  the 
happiness  of  the  righteous,  and  on  all  grounds  there  is  rea- 
son to  believe  that  to  be  without  end,  let  it  be  where  it  will. 
Through  the  other  classes  he  keeps  up  his  complaint,  that  the 
passages  are  quoted  without  note  or  comment,  as  if  the  laying 
out  of  a  plain  passage  to  speak  for  itself  were  an  act  of  unfair- 
ness. Mr.  Balfour  requires,  that  it  shall  not  only  be  asserted 
that  the  punishment  is  eternal,  but  that  it  is  to  be  in  the  future 
world.  "  Prove,  my  dear  Sir,  that  any  text  says  the  punishment 
is  beyond  the  grave,  and  I  give  you  no  further  trouble  in  oppos- 
ing endless  punishment."  More  than  this  can  easily  be  done. 
It  can  be  proved  that  it  is  beyond  the  resurrection.  In  Rev. 
20:  15.  after  what  Mr.  B.  admits  to  be  a  description  of  the  res- 
urrection, after  the  sea,  death  and  hades  delivered  up  their 
dead,  it  is  added,  and  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in  the 
book  of  life,  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  But  it  is  asking  too 
much  to  require,  that  the  assertions  of  eternal  punishment  shall 
be  accompanied  with  the  designation  of  the  place  where  it  will 
be  executed.  The  assertions  of  God's  eternity,  are  not  ac- 
companied always  with  the  geography  of  the  world,  where  he 
displays  his  peculiar  presence.  Mr.  B.  often  insists  that  the 
passages  which  express  the  eternity  of  the  happiness  of  the 
righteous,  shall  not  be  brought  as  evidence  that  that  other  class 
imply  the  eternity  of  punishment,  because  he  pretends  to  have 
proved  that  the  eternal  life  of  which  they  speak  is  confined  to 
this  world.  In  relation  to  this,  I  have  nothing  further  to  say.  I 
refer  the  reader  to  my  remarks  on  that  subject,  in  the  last  chap- 
ter. If  any  man  is  so  far  lost  to  common  sense,  as  to  believe 
Mr.  B.'s  positions  in  relation  to  that  subject,  I  expect  he  will 
believe  in  no  punishment  beyond  the  grave,  or  in  any  thing  else, 
however  absurd.  These  will  serve  as  a  specimen  of  Mr.  B.'s 
treatment  of  the  subject. 


88  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  WORDS 

The  result,  then,  to  which  the  subject  was  brought  by  Mr. 
Stuart,  is,  that  while  the  words  aio n  and  aionios  are  never 
used  to  designate  a  period  with  definite  limits,  in  a  great  major- 
ity of  instances  they  denote  an  endless  duration.  In  sixty 
instances,  applied  to  the  rewards  of  the  future  world,  the  read- 
er will  see  that  the  duration  is  as  endless  as  those  rewards. 
What  reason  then  is  there  for  believing,  that  when  applied 
twelve  times  to  punishment,  they  import  a  limited  duration  ? 
By  what  principles  of  interpreting  language  can  we  avoid  the 
conclusion,  that  the  meaning  is  the  same  in  both  cases  ?  So  of 
the  cases  where  glory  and  praise  are  ascribed  to  God,  forever, 
none  will  pretend  that  that  is  for  a  limited  period ;  but  what  rea- 
son for  a  limit  in  case  of  everlasting  punishment  which  does 
not  here  exist? 

The  literal  and  proper  sense  of  these  words  must  be  con- 
fessed t6  be  that  of  everlasting  or  eternal.  And  we  are  always  to 
understand  words  in  their  literal  and  proper  sense,  unless  there 
be  something  in  the  manner  in  which  they  are  used,  to  deter- 
mine it  to  be  a  metaphorical  use.  Now  if  that  which  is  called 
eternal  in  one  place,  is  said  in  another  place  to  come  to  an  end, 
as  where  it  is  said  the  earth  abideth  forever,  and  in  other  pla- 
ces it  is  said  it  will  have  an  end,  or  as  when  the  ceremonial 
law  was  said  to  abide  forever,  and  yet  foretold  by  prophets  to 
be  coming  to  an  end, — in  such  cases  we  are  to  understand  the 
term  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  unless  the  thing  said  to  come  to 
an  end  be  spoken  of  in  different  senses.  So  when  the  sacred 
history  assures  us  that  that  which  was  said  to  be  forever,  had 
come  to  an  end  ;  or  Avhen  the  thing  spoken  of  is  known  to  be  in 
its  nature  incapable  of  eternal  duration,  as  in  case  of  the  servant 
forever,  we  are  to  understand  the  forever  to  be  figurative. 
These  classes,  I  conceive,  comprise  all  the  cases,  where  the 
word  signifying  duration  is  to  be  understood  metaphorically. 
But  the  Universalists  will  find  it  impossible  to  bring  the  asser- 
tions of  eternal  punishment,  under  either  of  these  classes.  It 
is  nowhere  said  oi  that  punishment^  to  which  the  wicked  will  go 
with  the  devil  and  his  angels.  Matt.  25:  that  it  will  have  an 
end,  nor  that  it  has  already  come  to  an  end,  nor  that  the  soul  to 
be  punished  is  incapable  of  living  through  eternity. 


EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     89 

Again,  if  our  English  translation  were  the  original  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  words  everlasting,  forever,  and  eternal  were  used 
as  they  now  are  in  it,  no  common  sense  reader  could  doubt, 
whether  it  expressed  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment.  And 
yet  our  words  are  used  in  the  same  metaphorical  sense.  We 
speak  of  a  man's  heirs  forever,  we  speak  of  an  everlasting  vex- 
ation, of  an  eternal  talker,  while  if  the  words  have  any  literal 
and  proper  meaning,  it  is  that  of  eternal  duration.  If  everlast- 
ing is  so  properly  and  naturally  applied  to  punishments  limited 
with  the  present  life,  why  is  it  not  currently  used  in  applica- 
tion to  such  punishments  ?  If  we  should  call  imprisonment  for 
life  an  everlasting  imprisonment  ,and  say  that  the  court  had  sen- 
tenced such  and  such  a  felon  to  everlasting  punishment,  we 
should  have  at  least  the  credit  of  originality. 

But  Mr.  B.'s  reasons  must  now  be  attended  to,  in  an  exami- 
nation of  the  passages  which  speak  of  everlasting  punishment. 
Isa.  33:  14.  The  sinners  in  Zion  are  afraid,  fearfulness  hath 
surprised  the  hypocrites  ;  Who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  de- 
vouring fire,  who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  everlasting  burn- 
ings !  Mr.  B.  makes  this  passage  to  be  a  prediction  of  the  des- 
truction of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  But  it  is  only  necessa- 
ry to  read  this  chapter  with  the  preceding  chapters,  where  the 
Assyrian  is  mentioned  by  name,  to  see  that  the  subject  is  the 
destruction  of  the  Assyrian  army.  But  what  are  Mr.  B.'s 
strong  reasons  for  believing  that  Jerusalem's  destruction,  by 
the  Romans,  is  here  spoken  of?  First,  that  Israelites  are  refer- 
red to  by  the  phrase,  sinners  in  Zion.  This  we  grant,  and 
wait  for  proof  that  none  but  the  Israelites  in  that  age,  can  be 
meant  by  the  phrase.  Secondl}',  the  very  language  seems  to 
determine  it.  But  I  ask,  how  or  where  ?  Repeat  it.  The  sin- 
ners in  Zion,  &c.  what  word  or  syllable  goes  to  determine  it? 
Thirdly,  the  18th  verse  is  quoted  by  the  apostle,  1  Cor.  1:  20. 
But  this  quotation,  "  Where  is  the  wise  man,  where  is  the 
scribe,"  how  does  this  fix  the  application  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  ?  Neither  the  prophet,  nor  the  apostle  in  quoting 
him,  says  anything  about  Jerusalem  or  the  Romans.  Fourth- 
ly, the  Roman  people  seem  to  be  spoken  of,  verse  19.   Verse 

8 


90  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  WORDS 

19  reads  as  follows,  Thou  shalt  not  see  a  fierce  people,  a  people  of 
deeper  speech  than  thou  canst  perceive,  of  stammering  tongue 
that  thou  canst  not  understand.  If  that  be  the  Roman  people, 
then  the  passage  amounts  to  a  prophecy,  that  Jerusalem  shall 
not  see  the  Romans.  Is  that  a  prophecy  of  Jerusalem's  des- 
truction by  the  Romans  ?  Here  is  the  sum  of  his  proofs  that 
the  passage  refers  to  this  event.  His  positions,  that  tempo- 
ral calamities  are  sometimes  expressed  by  a  figure  of  fire  and 
burnings,  and  that  everlasting  sometimes  is  applied  to  a  limit- 
ed period,  we  shall  not  here  dispute.  He  having  failed  to 
show,  that  the  passage  refers  to  Jerusalem's  destruction,  we 
want  some  proof  that  the  word  everlasting,  here,  has  a  limit  to 
its  meaning.  None  of  the  three  limitations  above  referred  to, 
can  apply.  In  any  instance  where  the  word  everlasting  is 
used  metaphorically,  it  is  easy  to  show  it  to  be  so  used.  And 
we  demand  the  reasons  in  this  case. 

The  true  interpretation  of  the  passage  before  us,  T  conceive 
to  be  something  like  this.  When  the  ungodly  Israelites  saw 
the  dreadful  execution  of  God's  wrath  upon  the  Assyrian  ar- 
my,7-the  angel  smiting  in  one  night  eighty-five  thousand  men, 
they  are  represented  as  being  powerfully  impressed  with  the 
fear  of  God,  together  with  a  consciousness  of  their  own  guilt, 
and  giving  expression  to  their  feelings  in — Who  among  us 
shall  dwell  with  everlasting  burnings  !  That  is,  If  God's  wrath 
be  such  a  consuming  fire,  working  such  vast  destruction  in 
one  night,  who  can  endure  its  everlasting  burnings!  The  con- 
text confirms  this  opinion.  From  the  seventh  to  the  ninth 
verse,  we  have  the  terror  and  distress  of  Israel,  which  prece- 
ded the  deliverance  from  the  Assyrian  invasion.  In  this  ex- 
tremity, God,  as  in  the  tenth  verse  and  onward,  declares  in  a 
sublime  manner,  that  he  will  arise  and  exalt  himself,  and  make 
the  invading  arrny  as  chaflT  and  stubble  before  devouring  fire, 
as  thorns  cut  up,  and  the  burning  of  lime.  And  then  he  makes 
his  proclamation — Hear,  ye  that  are  afar  off*,  what  I  have  done, 
and  ye  that  are  near  acknowledge  my  might.  The  sinners  in 
Zion  are  afraid,  &c.  His  might,  it  seems,  is  exerted  for  deliver- 
ance, instead  of  destruction.    And  in  the  following  verses,  he 


EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     91 

goes  on  to  describe  the  prosperity  of  Jerusalem ;  a  fact  which  ut- 
terly excludes  Mr.  B.'s  interpretation.  This  passage,  then,  must 
bo  taken  as  a  proof  of  everlasting  punishment,  notwithstanding 
anything  which  he  has  shown  to  the  contrary.  It  is  the  lan- 
guage of  sinners  in  Zion,  inferring  the  terribleness  of  ev- 
erlasting fire,  from  the  terrors  of  God's  anger  exerted  for  one 
night. 

Dan.  12:  9.  And  many  of  them,  (or  the  multitude  of  them) 
that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth,  shall  awake,  some  to  everlast- 
ing life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  All 
that  Mr.  B.  has  to  say  upon  this  passage  has  been  replied  to,  ex- 
cept so  far  as  respects  the  Avord  everlasting,  in  the  chapter  on 
the  judgment.  We  have  shown  the  fallacy  of  his  application 
of  itto'jerusalem's  destruction.  And  now  this  resurrection 
is  said  to  be  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  and  we  call 
for  reasons  why  the  everlasting  is  not  to  be  understood  in  its 
proper  sense.  The  burden  of  proof  is  now  on  Mr  B.  to  show 
that  there  will  be  a  limit  to  an  everlasting,  that  commences 
after  the  resurrection,  after  all  earthly,  metaphorical  everlast- 
ings have  passed  away. 

Matt.  18:  8.  Wherefore  if  thy  hand  or  thy  foot  offend  thee, 
cut  them  off, — it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  halt  or 
maimed,  than  having  two  hands  or  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  ev- 
erlasting fire.  The  absurdity  of  Mr.  B.'s  reference  of  this 
passage,  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  has  been  shown  in 
another  part  of  this  book,  and  Ave  wait  for  other  reasons  for  be- 
lieving that  everlasting  fire  means  any  limited  punishment.  It 
remains  for  Mr.  B.  to  show  cause  why  it  is  not  to  be  under- 
itood  as  it  reads.  And  the  same  remark  will  apply  to  the  oth- 
er instances,  where  this  passage  occurs  in  the  evangelists. 

Matt.  25:  41.  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  :  in  connexion  with 
verse  4G.  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment, 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal.  The  consideration  of  this 
passage  Avill  form  the  subject  of  the  next  chapter,  and  it  need 
not  here  be  considered. 

Mark  3:  29.  But  he  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy 


92  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE   WORDS 

Ghost,  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  dam- 
nation. This  has  been  considered  in  the  chapter  upon  the 
judgment.  But  I  cannot  here  omit  to  notice  the  unusual 
strength  of  the  expression.  The  Greek  is,  Shall  not  have 
forgiveness  to  all  eternity,  but  is  obnoxious  to  eternal  damna- 
tion. 

2Thes.  1:9.  Who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  des- 
truction, from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  the  glory  of  his 
power.  Mr.  B.'s  objections  in  relation  to  this  passage  have  been 
met,  and  his  failure  to  show  that  everlasting  applies  to  any  thing 
in  this  life,  has  been  made  sufficiently  manifest  in  the  chapter 
upon  the  judgment. 

Heb.  6:  2.  Of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  of  the  resurrection,  and  of  the  eternal  judgment.  This 
is  one  of  the  cases  where  Mr.  B.  uses  indecent  violence  to  the 
plain  language  of  scripture.  Contrary  to  the  express  language 
of  the  passage,  he  says,  the  "  principles  of  the  doctrine"  in  the 
preceding  verse  does  not  mean  anything  in  the  gospel,  but  in 
the  Old  Testament  institutions.  But  it  is  expressly  said,  the 
principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  With  as  much  reason,  he 
says  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  does  not 
mean  the  christian  doctrine  of  resurrection,  but  refers  to  some 
resurrections  which  took  place  under  the  Jewish  economy. 
But  how  such  resurrections  made  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, does  not  appear.  And  he  says  that  eternal  judgment  re- 
fers to  some  temporal  judgments  which  took  place  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation.  But  how  could  that  make  the  doctrine 
o/f/ie  eternal  judgment?  And  generally,  that  these  phrases 
thus  put  together,  are  to  be  understood,  as  covering  so  remote 
and  incongruous  particulars,  is  incredible.  The  whole  phra- 
seology of  text  and  context,  is  the  peculiar  costume  of  gospel 
ideas,  and  bearing  no  reference  to  Jewish  institutions.  The 
reason  for  believing  that  the  phrase,  "  the  doctrine  of  the  res- 
urrection of  the  dead,"  refers  to  the  general  resurrection,  and 
that  eternal  judgment  means  eternal  judgment,  is  as  good  as 
that  Jesus  Christ  refers  to  that  person  whom  we  call  the  Sa- 
viour, and  not  to  one  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets. 


EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     93 

2  Peter  2:  17.  To  whom  the  mist  of  darkness  is  reserved 
forever.  As  I  have  not  access  to  any  comments  of  Mr.  B.  up- 
on this  passage,  I  shall  not  multiply  remarks  of  my  own.  The 
persons  spok°en  of  in  the  context,  are  false  teachers,  who  bring 
in  damnable  heresies,  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them— 
who  bring  upon  themselves  swift  destruction— whose  judg- 
ment lingereth  not,  and  whose  damnation  slumbereth  not— 
whom  the  Lord  knoweth  how  to  reserve  unto  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, to  be  punished— as  he  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned, 
but  cast  them  down  to  hell.  They  are  compared  to  Baalam,  who 
loved  the  wages  of  unrighteousness  ;  and  after  heaping  harsh 
epithets  upon  them,  it  is  added,  for  whom  the  mist  of  darkness 
is  reserved  forever.  Surely,  there  is  nothing  in  these  epithets 
that  would  lead  us  to  conclude,  that  their  punishment  was  only 
some  temporal  calamity.  The  frequent  use  of  the  words,  judg- 
ment and  damnation,  and  the  comparison  with  the  destruction 
of  the  angels  that  sinned  and  were  cast  down  to  hell,  are  at 
least  presumptive  evidence  that  the  damnation  in  hell  is  in- 
tended by  the  mist  of  darkness  forever.  And  then  our  oppo-, 
nents  are  required  to  show,  in  what  historical  fact  these  false 
teachers  were  known  to  have  experienced  in  this  world  the  mist 
of  darkness  forever— wherein  temporal  calamities  came  upon 
them,  like  to  the  casting  down  to  hell  the  angels  that  sin- 
ned. 

Jude  13.  Wandering  stars,  to  whom  is  reserved  the  black- 
ness of  darkness  forever.  This  is  similar  to  the  last,  and  I 
cannot  discover  that  its  evidence  has  been  gainsayed  by  Mr.  B. 
and  I  shall  offer  no  remarks  upon  it. 

Jude  7.  Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  cities  about 
them,  in  like  manner,  are  set  forth  as  examples,  suffering  the 
vengeance  of  eternal  fire.  Mr.  B.'s  reasons  for  believing  that 
the  fire  of  hell,  or  eternal  fire,  is  not  here  meant  are  the  follow- 
ing. First,  Peter  mentions  the  case  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
but  says  nothing  about  their  going  to  hell.  •  But  the  fact,  that 
Peter  has  not  said  it,  proves  no  more  than  that  Paul  has  not 
said  it,  and  neither  proves  that  Jude  has  not.  His  second  rea- 
son is,  "that by  comparing  verses  5,  6  and  7,  we  find  that  Judo 


94  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  WORDS 

says,  that  the  people  to  whom  he  wrote  knew  that  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  suffered  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire.  But  they 
could  not  know  that  they  suffered  it  in  a  future  state  of  exis- 
tence." Jude  does  not  say  that  they  knew  it,  as  the  reader  will 
see  for  himself.  And  if  he  had  said  it,  who  is  able  to  gainsay 
it  ?  For  the  readers  of  this  epistle  had  doubtless  read  the  in- 
timation which  Christ  had  given  of  the  fact,  in  speaking  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment.  Thirdly,  Mr- 
B.  objects,  that  they  are  set  forth  as  an  example,  which  could 
not  be,  if  the  example  v/ere  in  a  future  state  ;  for  an  example 
must  be  visible,  to  be  of  any  effect.  This  surely  is  a  new  doc- 
trine. Cannot  a  fact,  though  known  by  sufficient  testimony, 
affect  us  as  an  example,  unless  seen  by  our  own  eyes  ?  Then 
the  example  of  Christ  is  no  example  for  us.  That  comes  to  us 
through  sufficient  testimony,  and  so  does  the  example  of  Sod- 
om's suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire.  The  force  of  this 
passage  then,  remains  unbroken. 

Rev.  14:  11.  And  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  up 
forever  and  ever,  and  they  have  no  rest  day,  nor  night  who 
worship  the  beast  and  his  image.  And  Rev.  19:  1.  And  after 
these  things  I  heard  a  great  voice  of  much  people  in  heaven, 
saying,  alleluiah,  salvation  and  glory  and  honor  and  power,  un- 
to the  Lord  our  God,  for  true  and  righteous  are  his  judgments  ; 
and  again  they  said  alleluiah,  and  her  smoke  rose  up  forever 
and  ever.  So  also  Rev.  20: 10.  And  the  devil  that  deceived  them 
was  cast  into  a  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  where  the  beast 
and  the  false  prophet  are,  and  shall  be  tormented  day  and  night, 
forever  and  ever.  Here  follows  every  word  Mr.  B.  has  to  say 
in  relation  to  these  passages — "It  would  be  idle  to  show  that 
these  passages  have  no  respect  to  punishment  in  a  future  state 
of  existence.  No  well  informed  man  would  urge  this  as  a 
proof  of  such  a  doctrine,  for  it  is  plain  that  their  punishments 
were  in  this  world,  where  time  is  measured  by  day  and  night." 
This  is  the  way  in  which  he  chooses  to  dispose  of  testimony 
so  incontrovertible.  Though  I  should  hazard  the  loss  of  his 
estimation  of  being  a  well  informed  man,  I  should  be  able  to 
bear  it,  since  I  should  have  the  help  of  such  names  as  Edwards, 


EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     95 

Saurin,  Dwight,  Scott,  Rosenmiiller,  Fuller  and  Stuart,  men 
generally  esteemed  not  altogether  destitute  of  information  on 
such  subjects.  This,  then,  is  the  kind  of  dealing  by  which 
men  are  to  be  brought  into  the  persuasion  that  there  is  no  fu- 
ture punishment.  When  the  most  strong  assertions  of  such 
punishment  come  under  notice,  they  are  to  be  set  aside  with 
tlie  passing  remark,  that  no  well  informed  man  makes  use  of 
them  to  prove  the  doctrine.  This  is  an  easy  method  of  argu- 
ment, and  for  thousands  of  his  more  confiding  readers,  who 
have  not  the  means  of  knowing  better,  it  is,  doubtless,  satis- 
factory. But  what  a  tremendous  responsibility  does  he  as- 
sume, who  convinces  men  of  such  an  error  by  such  means. 
The  only  reason  which  he  gives  to  makes  us  see,  what  to  him 
is  so  plain,  is,  that  when  this  punishment  is  inflicted,  time  is 
measured  by  day  and  night.  But  this  is  equally  good  to  prove 
that  there  is  no  heaven  but  in  this  world.  In  chap.  7:  15.  we 
read,  Therefore  are  they  before  the  throne  of  God,  and  serve 
him  day  and  nigJit  in  his  temple.  The  same  principle  would 
also  require  that  the  present  national  distinctions  be  preserved 
in  heaven,  since  it  is  said,  chap.  22:  24.  The  nations  of  them 
that  are  saved  shall  walk  in  the  light  of  the  New  Jerusalem. 
The  adoption  of  such  frigid  and  puerile  evidence  may  fairly  be 
taken  as  proof  of  the  scarcity  of  that  commodity.  The  reader 
will  see  that  our  author  has  given  us  no  reason  why  we  must 
not  understand  these  three  passages  as  proofs  of  everlasting 
punishment,  in  the  world  to  come  ;  and  any  comments  of  mine, 
designed  to  set  clear  evidence  in  a  stronger  light,  would  be 
holding  "a  farthing  candle  to  the  sun." 

I  have  now  finished  the  examination  of  the  particular  pas- 
sages, in  which  the  words  in  question  occur  in  application  to 
punishment.  And  here  I  cannot  forbear  to  give  a  quotation 
from  Andrev/  Fuller.  "It  has  long  been  the  practice  of  writers 
on  your  side  of  the  question  to  ring  changes  upon  the  words 
(lion,  and  aionios — pretty  words,  no  doubt,  and  could  they  be 
proved  to  be  less  expressive  than  the  English  words,  everlast- 
ing and  eternal,  they  might  be  something  to  the  purpose.  But 
if  not,  the  continual  recurrence  to  them,  is  a  mere  aifectation 


96  SIGNIFICATION  OF  THE  WORDS 

of  learning^,  serving  to  mislead  the  ignorant.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
tliis  is  an  exercise  which  hardly  becomes  you  or  me.  I  shall 
only  observe  upon  it,  that  by  this  method  of  proceeding,  you 
may  disprove  almost  anything  you  please.  There  are  scarce- 
ly any  terms  in  any  language,  but  what,  through  the  poverty  of 
language,  are  sometimes  used  in  an  improper  or  figurative 
sense.  Thus,  if  one  attempt  to  prove  the  omniscience  of 
God,  from  its  being  declared  that  his  understanding  is  hift- 
nite,  you  might  answer,  the  term  infinite  is  sometimes  used  to 
express  only  a  very  great  degree,  as  when  the  strength  of  Ethi- 
opia and  Egypt  are  said  to  have  been  infinite.  Nahum  3:  9. 
The  question  is,  could  stronger  terms  have  been  used  than  are 
used  ?  To  object  against  the  words,  everlasting,  eternal,  &c. 
as  being  too  weak  and  indeterminate  in  their  application,  for 
the  purpose,  is  idle,  unless  others  could  be  named  Avhich  are 
stronger,  and  more  determinate.  What  expressions  could 
have  been  used,  that  would  have  placed  the  subject  beyond  dis- 
pute ?  You  ordinarily  make  use  of  the  term,  endless,  to  ex- 
press our  doctrine  :  it  should  seem  then,  that  if  we  read  of  end- 
less punishment,  or  punishment  without  end,  you  would  believe  ; 
yet  the  same  objections  might  then  be  made.  It  is  common  to  say, 
of  a  loquacious  person,  he  is  an  endless  talker:  it  might,  there- 
fore, be  pretended  that  the  term,  endless,  is  very  indetermi- 
nate— that  it  often  means  not  more  than  three  or  four  hours. 
Thus  you  may  see,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  language,  to  stand 
before  such  methods  of  criticising  and  reasoning." 

As  to  the  suggestions,  that  are  repeatedly  made  in  the 
course  of  Mr.  B.'s  reasonings  on  this  subject,  that  the  Avords 
rendered  eternal,  &c.  are  applied  but  seldom  to  punishment, 
(twelve,  in  all  the  instances  in  the  New  Testament)  I  would 
remark,  that  twelve  times,  out  of  ninety-six,  is  as  large  a  pro- 
portion as  the  subject  requires,  since  it  is  applied  to  nearly  a 
score  of  different  subjects.  It  is  applied  as  often  to  the  du- 
ration of  punishment  as  to  the  duration  of  the  existence  of  God. 
To  refute  such  trifling  is  verily  humiliating. 

The  eternity  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  is  implied  in 
some  passages  which  I  shall  now  quote,  in  which  those  words 


EVERLASTING,  ETERNAL,  FOREVER,  ETC.     97 

do  not  occur.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death,  I  do  not  say  he  shall 
pray  for  it.  It  is  impossible  to  renew  them  again  to  repent- 
ance. If  we  sin  wilfully  after  we  have  received  the  know- 
ledge of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin, 
but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment.  He  that  believ- 
eth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abid- 
eth  on  him.  I  go  away,  and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die 
in  your  sin^ ;  ivhither  I  go  ye  cannot  come.  Whose  end  is  de- 
struction. He  that  showeth  no  mercy  shall  have  judgment 
without  mercy. — Now  if  there  be  a  sin  for  the  pardon  of  which 
we  may  not  pray,  there  is  a  sin,  doubtless,  which  God  never  will 
pardon.  If  there  be  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,  in  any  case,  but 
a  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment ; — if  there  be  some  that  die 
in  their  sins,  who  cannot  go  whither  Christ  has  gone,  there  are 
some  that  (vill  never  get  to  heaven.  If  there  be  some  whose 
end  is  destruction,  there  are  some  who,  in  the  final  pe- 
riod of  their  existence,  will  still  be  enduring  destruction.  If 
there  be  a  man  for  whom  it  had  been  good  never  to  have 
been  born,  there  is  one  whpse  career  will  not  be  that  of  eter- 
nal glory  ;  for  such  glory  would  infinitely  outweigh  all  con- 
ceivable temporal  punishments.  If  there  be  any  on  whom  falls 
judgment  without  mercy,  there  are  some  who  are  never  saved, 
for  none  can  be  saved  without  mercy.  And  we  are  told  that 
many  shall  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able.  Enter  into 
what  ?  Salvation,  to  be  sure — for  it  was  said  in  reply  to  the 
question.  Are  there  few  that  be  saved.  If,  then,  there  be  ma- 
ny that  shall  not  enter  into  salvation,  all  hopes  of  a  universal 
salvation  are  groundless, 


CHAPTER  VI. 


COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV.  AND  XXV. 

The  testimony  of  the  forty-first  and  forty-sixth  verses  of  the 
the  25th  chapter  of  Matthew,  is  unequivocal— and  the  Univer- 
salists  have  labored  hard  to  dispose  of  it.  Both  Mr.  B.  and  Mr 
Whittemore  have  given  us  an  extended  argument  upon  it;  but  a? 
Mr.  W.  has  considered  the  passage  most  at  length,  I  shall  most 
particularly  notice  his  argument,  having  my  eye  upon  anything 
material  to  be  found  in  Mr.  B.'s  comment,  which  is  not  to  found 
in  Mr.W.'s.  Mr.,  W,  first  finds  in  the  clause,  "When  the  Son  of 
Man  shall  come  in  his  glory,"  verse  31st,  an  indication  that  the 
passage  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Because 
Christ  in  some  instances  is  said  to  come  in  his  glory,  when  said 
to  come  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it  is  inferred  that 
this  coming  relates  to  that  event.  He  quotes  the  following 
passage.  Matt.  16:  27,  28.  "  For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come 
in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his  angels,  and  then  shall  he 
reward  every  man  according  to  his  works.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  there  be  some  standing  here,  which  shall  not  taste  of 
death,  till  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom  :" 
and,  first,  labors  to  prove  that  this  coming  was  at  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  and  hence,  makes  an  argument  to  show  that 
the  same  is  true  of  the  passage  before  us.  With  regard  lo  this 
last  quoted  passage,  it  appears  to  me  to  be  a  clear  case,  that 
that  coming  of  Christ  spoken  of  in  the  28th  verse,  refers  to  his 
final  coming  to  judgment;  and  that  in  the  29th,  refers  to 
something  to  take  place  during  the  life  of  some  then  present; 
a  little  specimen  of  the  glory  of  which,  he  gave  in  his  transfig- 
uration, which  is  described  in  the  same  connexion.  \  That  his 
coming  in  his  glory  first  spoken  of,  refers  to  the  final  judgment. 


COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV.  99 

is  clear,  from  the  fact,  that  it  immediately  follows  a  remark, 
made  to  enforce  the  duty  of  laying  down  the  life  in  his  service, 
out  of  respect  to  retributions  after  death.  He  tells  his  hear- 
ers, whosoever  shall  save  his  life,  shall  lose  it — and  that  noth- 
ing can  be  given  in  exchange  for  the  soul.  And  then  adds — 
For  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  and 
of  his  holy  angels,  and  then  shall  he  reward  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  works.  Now  why  does  he  speak  of  the  coming  of 
the  Son  of  Man,  as  an  enforcement  of  the  duty  of  laying  down 
the  life,  if  it  was  not  a  coming  that  was  to  affect  us  after  death. 
Then  it  is  a  coming,  in  which  he  will  render  to  every  man  ac- 
cording to  his  works.  But  every  man  was  not  then  and  there 
in  Jerusalem,  to  receive  according  to  his  works  ;  and  those 
that  were,  especially  the  christians,  had  no  adequate  re- 
compense in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.^  And  then  the  phra- 
seology in  the  28th  verse,  intimates  that  there  is  a  studied  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  comings.  In  the  latter  case  it  is 
said.  He  shall  come  in  his  kingdom,  and  in  the  former,  that  he 
shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  ivith  his  holy  angels.  If  both 
clauses  referred  to  the  same  thing,a  pronoun  would  have  natural- 
ly supplied  the  place  of  the  last,  and  prevented  the  repeti- 
tion.'' And  then,:^here  are  no  instances  in  the  Evangelists,  where 
the  coming  of  Christ  "  with  his  holy  angels,"  is  plainly  applicable 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.^_  Or,  if  Mr.  W.  will  have  it, 
that  this  is  a  mere  rhetorical  flourish,  descriptive  of  God's  maj- 
esty and  glory,  then  this  passage  is  not  parallel  with  that  in 
chap.  25th.  For  there  it  is  said,  he  shall  come  with  all  his  holy 
angels,  that  is,  (if  we  must  so  understand  it)  with  all  his  glory  ; 
that  is,  with  the  highest  and  most  intense  display  of  his  glory, 
that  ever  will  be  made.  But  is  it  true  that  his  coming  at  the 
end  of  the  Avorld,  and  at  the  resurrection,  will  not  be  connect- 
ed with  more  majesty  and  glory  ,than  was  that  ?  If  his  train  of 
angels  is  only  a  figure  for  the  exhibition  of  glory,  surely  the 
coming  spoken  of  chap.  25th,  being  the  time  when  all  his  glo- 
ry is  displayed,  must  be  his  final  coming.  But  read  the  pas- 
gage  according  to  that  interpretation,  and  notice  the  tautology. 


100    COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV. 

When  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  his 
glory  with  him,,  then  shall  he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory. 

But  suppose  we  admit  that  chap.  16,  verse  27,  does  refer  to 
Christ  coming  at  that  age,  and  that  there  is  a  similarity  in  the 
phraseology,  it  is  not  proved  that  the  passage  before  us  refers 
to  that;  because  the  connexion,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  al)- 
solutely  determines  it  to  the  final  coming  of  Christ.  Mr.  W.'a 
next  suggestion  is,  that  the  subject  of  discourse,  in  the  25th 
chapter,  is  the  same  as  in  the  24th,  and  that  the  24th  is  a 
prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  that  the  24th 
does  not  also  contain  a  prophecy  of  the  final  judgment,  should 
be  proved  before  the  conclusion  is  drawn.  If  we  should  admit 
that  there  is  a  general  oneness  of  design  running  through  the 
two  chapters,  it  would  rather  follow  that  the  24th  treats  of  the 
general  judgment  because  the  25th  does,  rather  than  that  the 
25th  does  not  because  the  24th  does  not:  inasmuch  as  the  25th 
contains  language,  as  we  shall  see,  which  cannot,  without  man- 
ifest violence,  be  understood  of  anything  short  of  the  general 
judgment.  I  have  no  wish  to  controvert  any  of  Mr.  W.'s' 
proofs  that  the  24th  chapter,  so  far  as  the  29th  verse,  speaks  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  that  he  is  mistaken  in  ap- 
plying the  remainder  of  the  chapter  to  that  event,  I  shall  show- 
in  the  sequel.  And  if  I  do  this,  what  he  says  in  referring  the 
parable  of  the  ten  Virgins,  and  the  parable  that  follows  it,  to 
that  event,  will  be  refuted  without  any  further  remarks.  I 
shall  now  proceed  to  give  my  views  of  the  whole  passage. 

In  the  first  place,  as  to  the  question,  in  the  beginning  of 
chap.  24th — When  shall  these  things  be,  and  what  shall  be  the 
sign  of  thy  coming  and  of  the  end  of  the  world  ?  I  agree  with 
Mr.  W.  that  the  phrase  ought  to  be  rendered,  "  end  of  the  age," 
instead  of,  end  of  the  world.  Now  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  what 
event,  according  to  current  Jewish  notions,  the  disciples  were 
expecting  to  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  age,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  this  inquiry  will  be  evident.  They  were  expecting  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  for  Christ  had  just  told  them.  And 
according  to  current  opinions,  they  were  expecting  the  ap- 


COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV.     101 

pearance  of  Christ  in  external  majesty,  to  establish  his  domin- 
ion in  tuis  '.vorld— his  subduinor  all  kingdoms  to  himself— his  . 
raising  the  dead,  and  sitting  in  judgment,  on   Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, and  his  completing  and  confirming  the  blessedness  of  the 
righteous,  and  inflicting  punishmenton  the  wicked.  (Vide  Wahl 
on  axon.)  Their  inquiry  of  course  was  as  to  the  time  when  the 
resurrection  and  the  general  judgment  would  take  place,  as  well 
as  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Is  it  asked,  why  Christ  in 
giving  his  answer,  did  not  correct  their  mistake  as  to  the  taking 
place  of  these  events  contemporaneously  with  Jerusalem's  des- 
truction? I  answer,  he  di^,  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  his  de- 
sign not  to  inform  the  world  as  to  the  exact  time  of  his  final 
coming.      He  first,  in  answering  the  broad  question,  gave  a 
description  of  Jerusalem's  coming  destruction,  and  then,  verse 
29,  began  his  description  of  his  coming  to  the  final  judgment, 
by  informing  them  that  this  event  would  come  afterwards,  and 
not  in  the   same  connexion— "  After  the  tribulation  of  those 
days."     And  then  he  tells  them  that  none  knows,  and  it  is 
not  the  design  of  the  Father  that  any  should  know  the  partic- 
ular day  and  hour  of  this  coming.     This  is  precisely  such  an 
answer  as  he  gave  to  essentially  the   same  question  after  his 
resurrection.     When  asked — Wilt  thou  now  restore  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  ?    he  answers.  It  is  not  for  you   to   know  the 
times  and  seasons  which  the  Father  has  put  in  his  own  power. 
Respecting  the  time  when  the  future  judgment  was  to  come, 
the  New  Testament  everywhere   observes  a  studied  silence, 
except  so  far  as  to  leave  the  impression,  that  however  many 
years,  and  ages  might  first  elapse,  it  would  come  soon,  it  was 
to  be  expected  as  no  distant  event.     And  the  last  thing  which 
he  says,  in  the  last  part  of  the  last  book  of  the  Bible,  a  book  by 
the  way,  which  Mr.  W.  admits  was  written  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  is— Behold  I  come  quickly.'    So  we  see  that 
the  disciples'  question  and  Christ's  answer  covered  both   the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  final  judgment. 

The  two  events  were  connected  in  their  minds ;  they  in- 
quired for  the  time,  and  for  the  signs  of  their  coming ;  he  an- 
swered them  as  to  both,  as  far  as  he  conceived  it  proper— giving 

9 


102    COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV. 

them  particularly  the  signs  of  Jerusalem's  destruction,  but  let- 
ting them  know  that  the  signs  of  his  last  coming,  would  be  the 
coming  itself, — that  no  sign  or  hint  would  be  given  till  his  actu- 
al appearance  should  burst  upon  an  astonished  world  ;  and  this 
to  enforce  the  need  of  watchfulness.  If  this  view  be  correct, 
no  one  need  be  stumbled  to  find  the  two  events  so  closely 
blended  in  the  description.  For  they  were  still  more  closely 
blended  in  the  question,  and  expectation  of  the  disciples. 
And  so  far  as  it  respects  the  date  of  each  event,  Christ  was 
not  called  upon  to  give  more  particular  information.  As  he 
purposed  that  no  man  should  know  the  day  and  the  hour,  he 
served  that  purpose,  and  yet  countenanced  no  errors  in  leav- 
ing the  subject  just  where  he  did.  That  the  disciples'  ques- 
tion comprehended  Christ's  coming  to  raise  the  dead,  is  indis- 
putable. _'  And  it  does  not  appear  that  he  evaded  that  part  of 
the  question  more  than  the  other.  And  that  two  events  so 
distant  in  time  should  stand  so  near  together  in  prophecy,  is 
nothing  unusual,  as  we  have  already  seen. 

We  come  now  to  examine  the  description  itself,  to  see 
whether  the  last  part  of  the  chapter  refers  to  the  final  judg- 
ment. One  proof  that  it  docs,  I  have  already  mentioned — i.  e. 
that  the  description,  verse  29,  is  of  Avhat  is  to  take  place  after 
those  days.  x'VU  the  loading  circumstances,  according  as  they 
actually  occurred  in  Jeiusalem's  destruction,  are  enumeratecl, 
in  the  previous  verses.  After  there  had  been  a  tribulation, 
such  as  was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  such  as 
was  never  to  he  again,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  it  is  said,  "  after 
the  tribulation  of  those  days,  the  sun  shall  be  darkened,"  &c. 
Now  if  what  is  said, both  before  and  after  the  29th  verse,  refers 
to  the  same  event,  it  should  read,  after  Christ  has  destroyed 
Jerusalem,  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  JNTan  coming  in  clouds  to 
destroy  Jerusalem.  Besides,  all  before  this  verse  is  easily,  and 
for  the  most  part  literally  applicable  to  Jerusalem's  destruc- 
tion. And  all  after  that  verse  is  incapable  of  such  an  applica- 
tion without  being  made  extravagantly  figurative.  And  then 
Luke  in  his  report  of  the  same  discourse,  gives  the  transi- 
tion   from  Jerusalem's    destruction   to  the     scenes    of    the 


COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV.    103 

Jast  day,  still  more  plainly.     He  winds  completely  up  the  sto- 
ry of  the  former,  before  he   commences  the  latter,  in  these 
•words,— And  they  shall  fall  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  shall 
he  led  captive  into  all  nations,  and  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden 
down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled. 
Now  what  we  claim  to  have  been  said  of  the  last  coming  of 
Christ,  is  said  after  all  this  ;-  -after  the  nation  is  scattered,  and 
Jerusalem  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  till  the  times  of  the 
G«ntiles  be  fulfilled.     After  having  told  the  whole  story  of  Je- 
rusalem's   destruction,  the  writer  goes  on  to  say— Then  shall 
they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  a  cloud.      And  then  this 
coming  of  Christ,  last  spoken  of,  is  made  a  day  of  rejoicing  to 
christians.     And  when  these  things  shall  begin  to  come  to 
pass,  look  up  and  lift  up  your^ead  and  rejoice,  for  your  re- 
demption draweth  nigh.     But  how  was  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem  a  scene   of  rejoicing  ?     The  temporal  condition  of 
christians  in  it  was  not  improved  by  it.     Their  flight  to  Pella 
was  a  privilege   which   they  might  have  had  before  if  it  had 
been  worth  their  seeking.     In  the  previous  part  of  the  chapter 
these  scenes  are  spoken  of  as  anything  but  those  of  a  glad  and 
glorious   redemption  of  christians.      They  were    command- 
ed to  notice  the  signs  of  the  coming  day  of  terror,  in  order  to 
timely  flight— in  order  to  escape  for  their  lives,  and  that  under 
such  circumstances  as  striptthem  of  all  their  possessions,  and 
so  that  terrible  must  be  the  condition  of  her  with  child,  and  her 
that  nursed  children,  and  of  those  that  made  their  flight  in  the 
winter.     But  in  that  part  of  the  chapter  which  refers  to  the 
last  coming  of  Christ,  christians  are  bid  to  lift  up  their  heads 
and  rejoice,  as  at  the  completion  of  their  redemption.     Can 
these  contrary  things  be  said  of  one  and  the  same  event  ? 

But  you  will  notice  that  it  is  said  immef/{«/e/?/ after  those  days, 
that  is,  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  sun 
shall  be  darkened,  as  if  the  last  coming  of  Christ  was  imme- 
diately after  that  event.  The  word  translated  immediately, 
jnay  also  mean  suddenly  after  a  considerable  interval.  It  is 
•50  used  in  the  following  passage— Now  he  that  betrayed  him 
gave  them  a  sign,  saying,  whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,  the  same 


104    COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV. 

is  he,  hold  him  fast,  and  immediately  he  came  to  Jesus,  and 
said,  hail,  master,  and  kissed  him.  Now  this  giving  of  the  sign, 
was  of  course  before  they  came  into  the  presence  of  Christ, 
and  the  act  of  kissing,  though  suddenly  done  when  they  ap- 
proached him,  must  have  been  sometime  after  the  giving- of  the 
sign.  The  word  immediately  implies  in  this  case,  only  the 
suddenness  of  the  act  when  it  Avas  done.  See  also  Mark  5:  2. 
Matt.  13:  5.  Mark  4:  5.  The  word,  immediately,  in  the  passage 
before  us,  does  not  mark  so  much  the  time,  when  the  evegat 
will  take  place,  as  the  suddenness  of  its  approach,  when  it 
comes.  So  it  is  parallel  with  other  representations  of  the  fact, 
that  in  a  moment,  in  a  twinkling,  the  event  shall  come. 

Much  stress  is  without  reason,  laid  upon  its  being  said,  this 
generation  shall  not  pass  away  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled. 
This  argument  is  grounded  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  word 
generation.  The  primary  and  most  common  meaning  of  the 
word  generation,  is  that  of  a  race  or  family,  as  the  generation 
of  Adam,  of  Abram,  of  Israel,  &c.  and  not  the  men  of  a  certain 
age.  It  is  true  that  the  generation  of  Israel  as  a  distinct  na- 
tion, is  not  to  be  obliterated  till  Christ's  second  coming.  But 
it  was  not  true  that  that  generation,  meaning  the  average  term 
of  human  life,  that  is  thirty  years,  continued  till  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  Very  few  of  those  at  middle  age,  at  the  time  of 
the  crucifixion,  could  have  been  alive  when  Jerusalem  was  de- 
stroyed, forty  years  after. 

Christ  in  this  verse  virtually  says,  this  nation  of  the  Jews 
shall  notlosc  itself  by  mingling  with  other  nations  till  the  last 
judgment.  It  shall  have  a  distinct  existence,  and  be  to  all 
ages,  a  standing  pledge  and  memento  of  his  final  coming. 
Thus  he  sets  forth  this  nation,  preserved  through  all  ages,  by 
a  careful  providence,  amounting  almost  to  a  perpetual  miracle, 
as  the  earnest  to  confirm  the  promise  of  his  coming.  And  in 
the  same  connexion  he  adds, — Heaven  and  earth  shall  pasH 
away,  but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away.  Then  the  date  of 
this  event,  be  it  what  it  will,  is  settled  in  the  mind  of  God, 
even  to  the  hour.  But  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  inca- 
pable of  being  thus  dated,  having  been  the  work  of  months  and 


COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV.    1  05 

vears.  No  man  on  the  ground  could  have  told  the  hour  when 
Christ  came  for  the  purpose  of  destruction.  Both  the  city  and 
the  nation,  died  by  inches.  Whereas  the  hour  and  moment, 
when  Christ  will  be  seen  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  will 
be  distinctly  marked.  The  last  coming  is  here,  and  in  oth- 
er places,  said  to  be  with  great  suddenness.  It  is  repre- 
sented by  such  comparisons  as  that  of  the  rushing  in  of  the 
waters  of  Noah's  flood,  or  the  kindling  of  the  fires  of  Sodom, 
as  an  event,  preceded  by  no  signs  or  premonitions.  The  only 
sign  of  his  coming  being  the  actual  sight  of  his  coming,  as 
the  summer  shows  itself  by  putting  forth  the  summer  foliage. 
But  I  need  not  say  that  the  coming  of  Jerusalem's  destruction, 
was  every  way  different  from  this.  Such  language  then,  must 
apply  to  the  future  coming  of  Christ.  And  in  other  particu- 
lars the  language  of  the  passage  is  eminently  descriptive  of 
the  scenes  of  the  last  day,  which  must  be  made  extravagant- 
ly hyperbolical,  to  apply  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The 
sun  shall  be  darkened,  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light,  the 
stars  shall  fall,  and  the  powers  of  heaven  shall  be  shaken. 
Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  heaven,  then 
shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  mourn.  And  they  shall  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  and 
great  glory,  and  he  shall  send  his  angels,  with  a  great  sound 
of  a  trumpet,  and  they  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the 
four  winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other.  Now  what  took 
place  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  such  language  is 
fit  to  describe?  Suppose  we  grant  that  the  darkening  of  the  sun 
and  moon,  and  the  falling  of  the  stars,  are  capable  of  represen- 
ting the  falling  of  the  Jewish  political  fabric,  other  parts  of  the 
description  are  not  capable  of  ihatap])lication.  It  is  said  all  the 
tribes  of  the  earth  (gethe  earth,  not  o  ik  oumene,  sometimes 
rendered  the  land  or  Jewish  nation.)  And  to  put  it  beyond  a 
question  that  the  whole  earth  and  not  simply  Palestine  is  here 
meant,  Luke  adds— For  as  a  snare  shall  it  come  on  all  them 
that  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth.  But  all  the  tribes  of  the 
earth  did  not  mourn,  nor  were  all  the  dwellers  on  the  face  of 
9* 


106    COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV. 

the  earth  suddenly  ensnared  by  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
To  the  Roman  empire,  then  the  greatest  part  of  the  world, 
those  were  days  of  triumph  and  dividing  of  spoils. 

And  then  what  is  meant  by  sending  his  angels  with  the 
sound  of  a  trumpet,  and  gathering  his  elect  from  the  four  winds;' 
Should  it  be  said  that  this  is  a  figure  for  the  spread  of  the  gos- 
pel in  all  parts  of  the  world>  and  the  gathering  of  christians  in- 
to the  church,  I  answer,  this  mterpretation  presupposes  that  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  to  all  parts  of  the  world,  was  cotem- 
poraneous  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  it  does  not 
appear  from  history  that  the  publication  of  the  gospel  to  the 
heathen,  received  any  new  and  special  impulse,  while  the  work 
of  destruction  was  going  forward  upon  Jerusalem.  But  thia 
phraseology  is  specially  appropriate  to  Christ's  coming  to  raise 
the  dead,  and  judge  the  world.  And  you  might,  with  as  little 
violence  to  the  language,  where  the  Apostle  says — The  Lord 
himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  and  with  the 
voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God,  and  the 
dead  shall  rise  first — say,  this  is  only  a  figure  for  the  powerful 
and  effectual  preaching  of  the  gospel ;  and  so  you  might  un- 
dermine all  the  proofs  of  a  resurrection. 

Further,  we  are  exhorted  to  watch,  because  we  know  not  at 
what  hour  this  coming  of  Christ  will  overtake  us,  whereas  the 
disciples  were  made  to  know  by  distinct  signs,  as  to  the  time 
when  the  national  dangers  were  approaching,  in  order  to  facil- 
itate their  flight.  But  they  were  given  to  understand  that  the 
world  could  determine  by  no  precursors,  when  the  morning  of 
the  resurrection  would  open  upon  them,  because  no  flight  could 
evade  the  terrors  of  that  day.  Of  two  women  grinding  at  a 
mill,  or  two  men  in  the  field,  the  one  siiould  be  taken  and  the 
other  left.  And  so  unavailing  would  be  all  efforts  to  escape, 
that  he  who  should  attempt  to  save  his  life,  should  lose  it,  and 
he  that  would  lose  it,  should  save  it.  This  circumstance  ef- 
fectually characterizes  the  final  coming  of  Christ,  of  which  his 
people  were  forewarned,  to  watch  and  make  timely  and  stren- 
uous efforts  to  escape  the  perils. 

I   trust  it  will   now  bo  seen,  that  there  is  language  in  this 


COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV.     I  07 

chapter  which  cannot  be  appropriately  applied  to  anything  short 
of  the  scenes  of  the  last  day.  And  that  all  the  universalist  con- 
clusions, drawn  from  the  application  of  the  whole  of  chapter 
24th  to  the  scenes  of  Jerusalem's  destruction,  are  unsound. 

We  come  now  to  the  25th  chapter.  Much  reliance  is 
made  on  the  particle  "t'/ie?i"  commencing  the  parable  of 
the  Ten  Virgins,  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  two 
chapters.  But  as  I  admit  that  the  same  general  subject  is 
continued  trorn  the  last  part  of  the  24th,  into  the  25th,  I  shall 
have  no  need  to  dispute  it.  Neither  the  parable  of  the  ten  vir- 
gins, nor  of  the  unfaithful  servant,  need  be  particularly  consid- 
ered. The  scenes  of  Jerusalem's  destruction,  could  hardly  be 
represented  as  a  marriage  festival,  even  to  the  christians.  For 
they  were  even  to  them,  scenes  of  consternation  and  flight. 
And  much  less  is  the  parable  of  the  servants  capable  of  such 
a  meaning;  for  where,  in  those  scenes,  was  the  distribution  of 
rewards,  according  to  what  each  had  gained  ?  Was  the  more 
faithful  christian  who  had  gained  his  five  talents,  able  to  make 
better  speed  towards  the  town  of  Pella,  than  he  who  had  gain- 
ed but  two  ?  And  was  the  advantage  of  this  flight  to  Pella, 
the  glorious  reward,  with  which  the  faithful  in  Christ's  king- 
dom are  crowned  ? 

If  we  look  now,  at  the  passage  directly  under  consideration, 
we  shall  find  insuperable  difficulties  in  applying  it  to  Jerusa- 
lem's destruction.  When  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  his  glo- 
ry, and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him.  Mr.  W.  will  have  us  un- 
derstand that  the  holy  angels,  here  represent  the  Roman  arm- 
ies; and  justifies  the  interpretation  by  the  instance  of  the  As- 
syrian army,  sent  for  the  punishment  of  Israel,  being  called 
God's  army.  But  he  gives  us  no  reason  why  the  Roman  ar- 
my, composed  of  heathen,  and  the  enemies  of  Christianity, 
should  be  called  holy,  his  holij  angels.  When  a  man  is  driven 
to  the  necessity  of  making  holy  angels  out  of  a  Roman  army, 
it  is  time  for  his  opponents  to  lay  down  their  pens.  Is  it  from 
such  holy  angels  as  these,  that  the  Redeemer  collects  the 
splendors  of  his  train,  when  he  comes  to  judge  the  world  in 
righteousness  ? 


108    COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV. 

Again,  there  was  not  an  assembling-  of  all  nations  before  the 
throne  of  Christ's  glory  in  that  event,  nor  anything  which  an- 
swers to  it.  It  was  not  an  event  which  very  particularly  affect- 
ed all  nations.     For  this  Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  W.  have  the  same 
answer,  i.  e.  that  the  phrase,  all  nations,  is  used  twice  before 
in  this  discourse,  when  all  nations  really  are  not  meant.     Ye 
shall  be  hated   of  all  nations  for  my  name's  sake. — And  this 
gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for  a 
witness  unto  all  nations.     That  the  apostles  were  hated  of  all 
nations,  and  that  they  preached  the  gospel  to  all  nations,  Mr. 
B.  admits ;  but  denies  that  this  passage  is  to  be  understood  of 
all  individuals  of  all  nations.      But  there  is  one  consideration 
which  he  overlooks ;  the  separation  in  the  text  is  of  individuals, 
as  such,  as  the  shepherd  divideth  the  sheep  from  the  goats. 
And  then  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  the  making  of  sheep 
and  goats,  and  not  the  sitting  in  judgment  on  them  after  they 
are  made.     And  then  how  could  the  results  of  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel,  even  if  it  were  called  the  assembling  of  all  na- 
tions, be  represented  as  a  part  or  appendage  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  ?    All  nations  to  whom  the  gospel  had  been 
preached,  according  to  our  authors,  are  represented  as  collect- 
ed to  have  a  part  in  this  scene,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving 
their  doom.  And  the  one  class  adequately  rewarded  for  all  their 
piety,  and  the  other  for  all  their  hatred  of  the  gospel.     But  on 
what  page  of  history  stands  the  record  of  this  ?  Mr.  W.  thrice 
repeats  his  own  assertion,  that  all  nations  were  assembled  at 
this  time,  and  then  leaves  us  staring  in  every  direction  in  vain, 
to  see  them  so  assembled.     Besides,  the  Roman  army  which 
we  have  just  been  taught  were  the  all  of  the  holy  angels  of 
God,  are  a  part  of  these  all  nations,  who  hated  Christians,  and 
who  were  assembled  to  be  judged  for  so  doing.     This  Roman 
army  then,  were  both  the  executioners  of  justice,  and  the  fel- 
ons who  felt  its  weight.     In  still  another  point,  the  interpreta- 
tion is  lame.     What  judgments  were  here  inflicted  upon  the 
pagan  world,  for  their  hatred  of  the  gospel  and  their  murder  of 
its  preachers?  History  gives  us  no  account  of  sufferings,  sent 
upon  them  through  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Probably 


COMMENTS  ON  3IATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV.  109 

Mr.  Balfour's  next  edition  of  his  Second  Inquiry  will  inform  us 
that  it  consisted  in  the  immense  wealth,  which  the  pag^an  world 
carried  away  from  the  plundered  cities  of  Judea. 

Equally  ridiculous  is  his  disposal  of  the  passage,  which 
speaks  of  the  devil  and  his  angels.  He  makes  the  devil  to 
mean  the  Jews.  But  who  were  they  on  the  left  hand  on  whom 
the  curse  was  thundered?  They  also  were  Jews.  If  Jews  and 
the  devil  are  synonymous  here,  we  may  read  it,  Depart,  ye 
cursed  Jews,  into  the  fire  prepared  for  the  Jews  and  his  an- 
gels, or.  Depart,  you  cursed  devil,  into  the  fire  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels.  And  then  according  to  this  who  were 
the  devil's  angels?  "The  emissariesof  the  Jews,"  says  Mr.  W. 
Very  well.  But  who  were  the  Jews'  emissaries  ?  The  Jews 
were  too  much  reduced  in  power  and  influence  in  the  world, 
long  before  this,  to  have  under  them  a  class  of  men  by  this 
name,  a  class  of  men  for  whom  a  fire  w^as  prepared  with  them- 
selves. 

But  they  have  made  their  most  shiftless  evasion  of  the  pas- 
sage— These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but 
the  righteous  into  life  eternal.  They  deny  that  eternal  Ufa 
has  any  reference  to  anything  enjoyed  in  the  future  world,  but 
they  make  it  the  joy  in  the  Holy«<jhost,  experienced  by  Chris- 
tians in  this  world.  But  if  it  be  nothing  more,  how  can  it  be 
represented  as  a  reward  for  righteous  conduct?  It  is  no  more 
than  what  the  righteous  already  had  before  these  formalities 
of  the  judgment.  The  Universalist  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage amounts  to  this— These,* that  is  the  Jews,  and  all  pagan 
enemies  of  the  gospel,  shall  go  into  the  punishment  which  was 
inflicted  by  the  Roman  army  on  Jerusalem,  figuratively  called 
everlasting  punishment ;  and  the  righteous  shall  go  away  into 
that  state  of  happiness,  in  -which  they  always  have  been  since 
their  conversion,  figuratively  called  eternal  life.  And  then 
you  will  ask,  what  means  that  word  everlasting  ?  The  punish- 
ment is  held  up  as  terrible  because  everlasting?  And  you  are 
told  it  means  the  everlasting  reproach,  that  rests  upon  that  na- 
tion  till  this  day.  But  you  will  still  inquire,  how  that  reproach 
now  existing,  could  be  a  terror  to  individuals  then  living,  ai\(\ 


110    COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV. 

how  the  wicked  men  of  the  all  nations  gathered  there,  could 
have  their  punishment,  their  everlasting  punishment,  in  the  in- 
famy which  came  upon  the  Jews  ?  But  these  questions  will  be 
asked  in  vain. 

Once  more.  The  language  before  us  is  that  of  a  judicial 
sentence.  The  words — Depart  ye  cursed  into  everlasting  fire, 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels,  are  taken  from  the 
mouth  of  a  judge  uttering  sentence  at  the  close  of  a  trial — 
which  circumstance  of  itself  excludes  the  figurative  interpreta- 
tion put  upon  it.  Judges  are  not  wont  to  give  sentence  in  po- 
etry or  hyperbole.  The  nature  of  the  case  requires  that  the 
sentence  of  the  law  be  expressed  with  the  greatest  possible 
exactness  and  precision.  That  every  word  be  so  measured  as, 
to  express  the  thing  intended,  and  no  more.  And  the  general 
practice  of  courts  corresponds  with  this  rule.  Whenever  you 
read  a  solemn  sentence  of  death  pronounced  by  our  courts 
you  read  language  framed  with  the  most  studied  precision,  at 
the  farthest  remove  from  all  metaphor  or  exaggeration.  The 
judge  is  seen  to  speak  as  if  from  the  consciousness  that  the 
condemnation  which,  as  the  organ  of  the  law,  he  utters,  has  it- 
self a  weight  which  it  is  far  from  desirable  to  aggravate  by  the 
swell  of  turgid  phraze.  If  there  is  any  occasion  when  such 
rhetorical  expedients  are  utterly  inadmissible,  not  to  say  unnat- 
ural and  ridiculous,  it  is  that  of  a  judicial  sentence.  A  judge 
may  use  what  style  of  language  his  feelings  dictate,  when  la- 
boring to  produce  an  impression  on  the  criminal,  and  on  the 
spectators,  by  a  statement  of  the  grounds  of  the  condemnation. 
But  when  he  comes  to  the  simple  utterance  of  the  last  voice  of 
the  law,  he  of  necessity  falls  into  language  the  most  naked 
and  literal,  that  can  be  found.  Statutes  written  in  poetry, 
would  not  be  a  greater  solecism,  than  hyperbole  in  a  judicial 
sentence.  But  in  the  verse  before  us  we  have  tlie  judge  of  all 
nations,  uttering  sentence  after  trial,  from  his  throne  of  glory — 
a  sentence  touching  the  weal  or  woe  of  all  nations — and  surely 
if  any  conceivable  occasion  could  require  the  language  to  be 
used  according  to  its  most  obvious  meaning,  it  must  be  this. 
And  yet  our  authors  will  have  us  understand  it  all  as  the  most 


COMMENTS  ON  MATTHEW  XXIV  AND  XXV.     Ill 

highly  wrought  hyperbole  or  unnatural  metaphor.  They  make 
the  word  "depart"  mean  to  remain,  and  be  destroyed  in  Jeru- 
salem, while  christians  depart  by  flight — and  the  phrase  "come 
ye  blessed,"  mean  to  flee  to  the  mountains  for  your  lives, — 
the  word  "  everlasting  "  to  mean  only  for  a  time,  and  the  word 
"fire  "  to  mean  the  reproach  endured  by  the  posterity  of  those 
accursed  in  Jerusalem's  destruction — "the  devil  and  his  angels" 
to  mean  only  the  Jews  and  their  imagined  emissaries.  Is  it 
conceivable  that  the  Judge  of  the  world  has  wrapt  his  most  sol- 
emn sentence  in  such  hieroglyphic  dress  ?  Suppose  a  judge  of 
one  of  our  courts  were  to  pronounce  sentence  cf  imprisonment 
for  the  limited  time  of  ten  years  ;  and  instead  of  giving  the  exact 
time,  should  say,  everlasting  imprisonment,  because  ten  years  is 
a  very  long  period  to  endure  imprisonment,  what  would  you  say 
of  the  justice,  nay  of  the  sanity  of  such  a  judge  ?  You  see  at 
once  what  would  be  the  effect  of  using  such  a  figure,  in  such 
a  sentence.  Though  the  word,  everlasting,  may  in  some  kinds 
of  composition  be  used  in  a  metaphorical  sense — it  cannot  be, 
and  it  never  is  so  used  in  a  solemn  sentence  of  the  law. 

But  I  cannot  longer  dwell  on  this  topic.  When  a  mind  has  be- 
come so  sophisticated  as  to  find  satisfaction  in  such  evasions  of 
plain  truth,  there  is  little  encouragement  to  offer  reasons.  But 
Avith  every  candid  reader  the  appeal  is  lodged  whether  there 
is  not  incontrovertible  proof  that  this  chapter  treats  of  the  final 
judgment — whether  the  proof  in  the  case  can  be  evaded  with- 
out a  resort  to  methods  of  interpretation  which  go  to  unsettle 
all  laws  of  language  and  all  principles  of  reasoning.  Who 
would  be  willing  on  such  a  shiftless  plank  to  embark  his  eter- 
n-al  all  and  launch  upon  the  shoreless  ocean ! 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHME]VT,  OR  THE  MEANING  OF  THE 

WORDS  TRANSLATED    UELL.       THE    MEANING    OF  SHEOL. 

r 

If  it  were  impossible  to  show  that  the  scriptures  speak  of  a 
'place^  in  which  future  punishment  will  be  inflicted,  the  fact 
would  not  invalidate  the  proof  exhibited  in  the  previous  chap- 
ters. The  fact  that  the  laws  of  the  State  do  not  designate  the 
place  where  murderers  shall  be  hung,  does  not  make  it  less 
certain  that  they  are  to  be  hung  in  some  place.  But  if  Ave 
show  that  the  bible  does  speak  of  a  place  where  execution  is 
done  upon  the  wicked  in  the  future  world,  that  involves  the 
proof  of  future  punishment.  This  I  trust  will  be  satisfactorily 
shown.  The  words  translated  hell,  arc  iS/ieoZ  and  Gehenna,  from 
the  Hebre  w,and  Hades  and  Tartarus,  or  rather  the  verb  of  which 
Tarlariis  is  the  root  from  the  Greek.  My  first  inquiry  will  be  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word  Sheoh  This  word  though  often  used 
in  the  Old  Testament  is  seldom  translated  hell,  and  more  sel- 
dom has  that  meaning.  Its  primary  and  most  common  significa- 
tion, is  that  of  grave,  place  of  the  dead,  place  of  departed  spirits. 
Nor  is  it  strange  that  a  word  having  such  a  primary  meaning, 
should  come  to  be  used  occasionally  in  such  a  different  sense. 
For  it  is  no  more  than  what  has  befallen  every  other  word,  that 
is  used  as  a  name  for  spiritual  and  eternal  things.  Human  lan- 
guage is  originally  formed  by  giving  names  to  ideas,  gained 
by  the  senses,  and  by  the  mind's  own  consciousness  while  using 
and  combining  these  ideas.  But  the  senses  have  no  cogni- 
zance of  the  objects  of  the  spiritual  and  eternal  world.  And, 
therefore,  language  in  its  original  formation  has  no  names  for 
these  objects.  The  makers  of  language  never  saw  the  ob- 
jects, and  have  given  them  no  names.     When  therefore  a  de- 


PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.        113 

scription  of  eternal  things  is  undertaken,  it  is  necessarily  done 
by  the  use  of  borrowed  language,  i.  e.  words  formed  to  desig- 
nate ideas  which  arise  from  the  intercourse  of  the  senses  with 
the  objects  of  this  world,  are  transferred  to  set  forth  spiritual 
ideas  that  are  imagined  to  have  some  resemblance  to  the  first. 
The  mind  seizes  on  some  supposed  analogy,  between  an  ob- 
ject of  sense  and  an  object  of  revelation,  and  gives  the  name 
of  the  first  to  the  latter.  So  all  the  names  of  the  place  of  fu- 
ture punishment  originated  ;  so  the  names  of  the  place  of  fu- 
ture happiness  were  made.  Heaven  originally  meant  the  vis- 
ible expanse,  or  firmament  above.  And  for  the  want  of  a  bet- 
ter name,  came  to  be  used  for  the  unseen  abode  of  the  blessed. 
Nor  can  we  speak  about  the  perfections  of  God  without  using 
words  in  a  like  secondary  sense.  We  ascribe  to  him  bodily 
organs  and  modes  of  thought  like  to  those  of  men,  not  because 
he  really  has  them,  but  because  such  is  the  poverty  of  human 
language,  and  the  contracted  sphere  of  human  ideas,  that  we 
cannot  conduct  our  reasonings  without  the  help  of  such  sup- 
posed analogy.  This  is  a  settled  principle  of  language  which  no 
one  disputes  in  its  general  form.  And  the  fact  that  hell  as  a 
place  of  punishment  is  not  the  primary  meaning  of  sheol,  no  more 
weakens  the  proof  that  in  some  instances  it  has  tliat  meaning, 
than  the  fact  that  the  place  of  future  happiness  was  not  prima- 
rily meant  by  heaven,  proves  that  that  word  is  never  used  in 
that  sense.  Yet  Mr.  B.  ignorantly  or  willingly  overlooking 
this  principle,  says,  [Inquiry  p.  17.]  "It  follows  of  course  (from 
the  admission  of  orthodox  writers  that  sheol  and  hades  did 
not  originally  signify  a  place  of  misery)  that,  wherever  these 
words  are  used  in  Scripture,  though  translated  by  the  word 
hell,  we  ought  not  to  understand  a  place  of  misery  to  be  meant 
by  the  inspired  writers."  This  indeed  is  a  mighty  conclusion 
to  draw  from  such  premises.  So  you  might  say,  because  the 
word  translated  heaven,  did  not  originally  signify  a  place  of 
happiness,  wherever  the  word  is  used  we  ought  not  to  under- 
stand that  a  place  of  happiness  is  meant.  Such  are  the  philo- 
logical principles  of  the  man  who  astonishes  the  natives  by 

10 


1  I  4  PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

lavish  exhibitions  of  the  profundity  of  his  Greek  and  Hebrew- 
learning. 

That  the  place  of  the  dead  should  according  to  the  princi- 
ple above  stated,  afford  a  name  for  the  place  of  punishment, 
v/ill  seem  still  more  natural,  when  it  is  taken  into  the  account, 
that  by  the  same  kind  of  transfer  of  language,  the  words  life 
and  death  are  abundantly  used  in  Scripture  for  the  rewards  of 
the  righteous,  and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  The  place 
of  the  dead  is  made  the  place  of  punishment,  in  the  same  way 
that  death  is  made  the  name  for  punishment  itself;  as  in  the 
following  instances  quoted  by  Stuart  injiis  Exegctical  Essays, 
to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for  a  more  full  illustration  of 
this  topic. — Ezek.  18:  4.  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die: 
which  is  repeated  in  18;  20.  So  also  in  Ezek.  18: 17.  He  shall 
not  die.  Verse  18.  He  shall  die.  V.21.  He  shall  not  die.  V.23. 
Have  I  any  pleasure  at  all  that  the  wicked  should  die  ?  V.  24. 

In  his  trespass   that  he   hath   trespassed shall  he  die. 

V.  28.  He  that  turneth  away  from  his  transgression  ....  shall 
not  die.  V.  32.  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  di- 
eth.  Prov.  15:  10.  He  that  hateth  reproof  shall  die.  Ezek. 
.a3:8.  The  wicked  shall  die  in  his  iniquity.  33:  11.  Why  will 
ye  die?  Prov.  33:  13.  If  thou  beatest  him  with  the  rod  he  shall 
not  die.  Gen.  2: 17.  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt 
surely  die.  3:  3.  Neither  shall  ye  touch  it  lest  ye  die.  John 
6:  50.  This  is  the  bread  which  cometh  down  from  heaven,  that 
a  man  may  eat  thereof  and  not  die.  Rom.  8:  31.  If  ye  live  af- 
ter the  flesh  ye  shall  die.  So  the  noun  death  is  used  in  the 
same  sense.  Deut.  30:  15.  See,  I  have  set  before  you  this 
day  life  and  good,  death  and  evil.  Jer.  21:  8.  I  have  set  be- 
fore you  the  way  of  life,  and  the  way  of  death.  Prov.  5:  5. 
Her  feet  go  down  to  death.  John  8:  51.  If  any  man  keep  my 
sayings,  he  shall  never  see  death.  Rom.  6:  23.  The  wages  of 
sin  is  death.  James  1:  15.  Sin  Avhen  it  is  finished  bringeth 
fortli  death.  Rev.  2:  11.  He  that  overcomcth  shall  not  be  hurt 
of  the  second  death.  Here  I  take  it  for  granted  tlie  words  die 
and  death  are  used  in  a  figurative  sense,  to  imply  punishment 


PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.        115 

or  suffering,  endured  as  the  consequence  of  sin.  No  matter 
whether  that  punishment  be  in  the  future  world  or  not — let 
every  one  judge  of  that — it  is  punishment  expressed  by  death 
used  in  a  secondary  sense.  These  and  other  like  instances, 
which  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely,  are  all  examples  of 
that  kind  of  usage  of  language,  by  which  the  place  of  the  dead 
became  the  place  of  the  punishment  of  the  dead.  Whetiier 
when  it  is  said,  the  wages  of  sin  is  death,  but  the  gift  of  God  is 
eternal  life,  eternal  death  be  meant,  I  do  not  affirm  or  deny  in 
this  place  ;  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  But  all  must  ad-  - 
mit  that  death  is  figuratively  used,  as  a  name  for  punishment  of 
sin,  as  sheol  the  place  of  the  dead  is  figuratively  used  for  the 
place  of  punishment  for  sin.  Even  should  we  grant,  what  Mr. 
B.  contends  for  in  his  book  miscalled  a  reply  to  Stuart's  Essays, 
that  the  word  death  in  these  cases  does  not  mean  suffering  for 
sin  in  the  future  world,  still  it  means  suffering  for  sin,  and  you 
may  locate  it  where  you  will,  and  yet  it  will  be  as  much  in  point 
to  illustrate  the  usage  of  the  language  in  question. 

Having  admitted  that  the  primary,  and  most  general  use  of 
the  word  sheol,  was  as  a  name  for  the  place  of  the  dead,  I  shall 
have  no  need  to  notice  a  great  part  of  Mr.  B.'s  Inquiry  on  this 
subject,  which  consists  of  comments  upon  more  than  half  a 
hundred  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs,  to  prove  what  no 
one  was  ever  silly  enough  to  dispute,  that  the  word  in  those 
instances  does  not  mean  hell.  I  shall  make  a  short  story  of  a 
long  one,  by  confining  my  attention  to  those  passages,  where 
I  conceive  the  word  is  used  for  a  place  of  punishment. 

Psalm  49:  15.  But  God  will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  power 
of  the  grave.  In  the  context  the  righteous  are  exhorted  not  to 
be  disturbed  by  the  pride  and  oppression  of  the  wicked,  on  the 
ground  that  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked  could  not  continue — 
that  they  would  all  die  like  sheep,  and  death  should  feed  upon 
them,  while  God  would  deliver  the  soul  of  the  righteous  from 
the  power  of  sheol,  and  receive  him  to  himself  The  subject  of 
the  Psalm  is  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked  on  this  side  of  the 
grave,  and  its  melancholy  end,  and  the  reverse  which  takes 
place  in  favor  of  the  righteous  at  death.     How  can  it  be  true, 


116       PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

that  God  will  redeem  his  people  from  the  power  of  sheol,  if  it 
be  not  from  sufferings  in  sheol  after  death,  while  death  is  left 
to  feed  upon  the  wicked  ?  How  can  it  be  that  death  shall  feed 
upon  the  wicked  in  a  sense  in  which  it  does  not  upon  the 
righteous,  if  there  be  no  distinction  by  happiness,  and  punish- 
ment beyond  the  grave  ?  In  the  73d  Psalm,  we  have  also  the 
same  general  ideas.  The  writer  was  envious  at  the  foolish 
when  he  saw  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked,  and  thought  that 
he  had  cleansed  his  heart  and  washed  his  hands  in  vain,  until 
he  went  into  the  sanctuary  of  God  and  understood  their  end. 
And  his  doubts  are  solved  by  contrasting  their  end  with  his 
own,  by  seeing  them  (in  the  light  of  the  sanctuary,  not  by  any 
knowledge  from  earthly  sources,)  brought  into  desolation  and 
consumed  with  terror,  but  himself  guided  by  God's  counsel, 
and  afterwards  received  to  glory — being  assured  that  while 
his  heart  and  his  flesh  faileth,  God  is  the  strength  of  his  heart 
and  his  portion  forever.  That  this  reverse  in  favor  of  the 
righteous,  and  against  the  wicked  is  to  take  place  in  their 
"enrf  "  after  death  is  evident,  because  it  is  far  from  being  a 
fact,  that  the  wicked  are  in  all  cases  brought  into  desolation 
and  consumed  with  terrors,  and  that  the  righteous  are  always 
exalted,  on  this  side  of  the  grave. 

Psalm  9:  17.  The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell,  and 
all  the  nations  that  forget  God.  Do  you  say  that  sheol  here 
means  only  the  place  of  the  dead,  and  make  the  sense  of  the 
passage — The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  the  grave  ?  I  answer, 
fshall  not  the  righteous  too  be  turned  into  the  grave  ?  But  Mr. 
Balfour  tells  us  "it  is  one  thing  to  die  and  another  to  be  cut  oft" 
by  the  judgment  of  God  from  the  earth."  Yes,  but  death  is 
death  in  both  cases.  And  Mr.  Balfour  is  desired  to  inform  us 
what  there  was  in  the  death  of  the  heathen,  which  he  says  are 
here  meant  by  all  the  nations  that  forget  God,  in  which  a 
marked  and  terrible  distinction  was  made  from  the  death  of 
Israelites.  When  was,  or  ever  will  be  the  time,  when  all 
heathen  nations  will  die  a  death,  so  marked  by  the  finger  of 
God.  He  raises  a  difficulty  out  of  its  being  asserted  that 
a// <Ae  nations  of  heathen  shall  be  turned  into  sheol, — assum* 


PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.        117 

ing  that  it  cannot  be  that  all  will  go  to  hell.  It  is  asserted  that 
the  wicked  and  those  that  forget  God  will  be  turned  into  hell. 
But  if  there  be  any  Jews  or  Gentiles  who  are  neither  wicked  nor 
guilty  of  forgetting  God,  they  of  course  will  be  saved.  But 
that  forgetting  God,  is  in  God's  esteem  a  grievous  sin,  you 
may  see  in  Psalm  50:  22.  Now  consider  this  ye  that  forget 
God,  lest  I  tear  you  in  pieces  and  there  be  none  to  deliver. 

Prov.  5:  5.  Her  feet  go  down  to  death,  her  steps  take  hold 
on  hell.  Prov.  9:  18.  But  he  knoweth  not  that  the  dead  are 
there,  and  that  her  guests  are  in  the  depths  of  hell.  Sheol  in 
both  these  instances  is  made  the  end  of  intercourse  with  lev/d 
women.  And  as  neither  a  sudden  nor  violent  death  Was  the 
necessary  result  of  that  sin,  there  seems  to  be  little  propriety 
or  force  in  the  expressions,  unless  a  punishment  after  death  be 
intended.  But  Mr.  B.  tells  us,  allusion  is  here  had  to  the  dis- 
ease which  attends  such  intercourse.  And  says  that  medical 
men  aver  that  this  disease  had  existence  as  early  as  when 
this  was  written.  But  what  medical  man  has  averred  it,  or  is 
competent  to  do  so,  we  wait  to  be  informed.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
there  is  a  total  absence  of  proof  that  any  such  disease  existed 
then.  And  yet  the  matter  needs  to  be  proved  before  it  can  be 
used  to  his  purpose. 

Deut.  32:  22.  A  fire  is  kindled  in  mine  anger,  and  it  shall 
burn  to  the  lowest  hell.  Mr.  B.  here  suggests  that  if  we  un- 
derstand by  the  lowest  hell,  the  place  of  endless  misery,  there 
must  be  three  divisions  of  it.  So  I  may  say  if  we  understand 
by  it  the  place  of  the  dead,  there  must  be  three  divisions  of  it, 
and  therefore  it  cannot  be  the  place  of  the  dead.  And  suppose 
the  language  did  fairly  support  Mr.  B.'s  inference,  would  that 
prove  it  not  to  be  a  place  of  punishment.  Is  he  able  to  show 
an  absurdity  in  the  idea  of  different  degrees  of  misery  in  hell? 
The  imagery  of  the  text  is  that  of  a  fire,  kindling  upon  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  and  burning  down,  to  the  place  which  the 
imaginations  of  men  at  that  time  peopled  with  the  spirits  of  the 
dead,  which  place  had  become  the  name  for  hell. 
These  are  not  all  the  instances  in  which  I  conceive  the  word 
10* 


118  PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

has  that  meaning,  but  they  will  serve  as  a  specimen  of  the  use 
of  the  word,  when  employed  in  its  secondary  sense.  Does  it 
seem  strange  to  any,  that  the  place  of  future  punishment  is 
not  revealed  with  more  clearness  in  the  Old  Testament,  they 
will  do  well  to  inquire  with  how  much  distinctness  the  place 
of  future  happiness  is  there  spoken  of.  There  is  as  much  said, 
and  as  distinctly  said  in  the  Old  Testament,  of  hell,  as  there  is 
of  heaven.  Mr.  B.  makes  much  of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  in- 
stance of  the  use  of  the  word  where  it  means  of  itself  the  place 
of  eternal  misery,  that  is,  that  the  word  does  not  of  itself  deter- 
mine the  duration  of  that  punishment.  But  with  what  fairness 
let  the  reader  judge.  Is  it  the  property  of  a  jiame  of  a  place  of 
punishment  to  determine  the  duration  of  that  punishment  ? 
Does  heaven  the  name  of  the  place  of  happiness,  of  itself  de- 
termine the  duration  of  that  happiness  ?  If  I  should  undertake 
to  prove  that  there  is  no  future  happiness  for  the  righteous,  I 
could  with  as  much  propriety  say,  that  the  word  heaven  is  no 
where  used  as  the  name  for  a  place  of  efernaniappiness.  Of 
the  same  character  is  the  following  suggestion  of  Mr.  B. — "  It 
is  now  generally  conceded  that  the  doctrine  o^  endless  punish- 
ment is  not  taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  Mr.  Stuart  does 
not  pretend  that  it  is  taught  there,  but  begs  his  readers  to 
grant  that  probably  future  punishment  may  be  taught  in  five 
texts."  Here  are  almost  as  many  misrepresentations  as  words. 
The  assertion  that  it  is  generally  conceded  that  endless  pun- 
ishment is  not  taught  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  false,  and  Mr. 
B.  ought  to  know  it — I  do  not  say  that  he  does.  I  think  I  may 
say  that  he  knows  that  orthodox  writers  generally  interpret 
Daniel  12:  2.  Some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt — and 
Isaiah  33:  14.  Who  can  dwell  with  everlasting  burnings — as 
teaching  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  Then  he  con- 
veys the  idea  that  Mr.  S.  concedes  that  it  is  not  taught  there, 
when  from  the  very  book  of  Mr.  S.  out  of  which  he  professes 
to  take  the  concession,  and  to  which  he  has  published  two  pro- 
fessed replies,  he  might  have  read,  and  it  is  charitable  to  pre- 
sume he  has  read  Mr.  Stuart's  interpretation  of  the  word  ever- 


PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       119 

lasting  in  Daniel  12:  2,  to  mean  a  proper  eternity.  But  the 
falsehood  ends  not  here.  He  tells  us  Mr.  S.  begs  his  readers 
to  grant  that  future  punishment  may  be  taught  in  live  texts, 
when  Mr.  Stuart  has  referred  his  readers  to  fifteen  texts  in 
which  the  doctrine  is  probably  implied.  The  readers  of  Bal- 
four who  have  never  seen  Stuart's  Essays,  must  have  strange 
impressions  of  that  book. 

I  will  now  notice  Mr.  B.'s  general  concluding  remarks  upon 
the  chapter  upon  sheol.  His  first  remark  is  that—"  In  no  pas- 
sage is  sheol  represented  as  a  place  of  fire  or  torment.  Noth- 
ing of  this  kind  stands  connected  with  it  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment." This  is  false.  For  in  Deutronomy  we  read— A  fire 
is  kindled  in  my  anger,  and  it  shall  burn  to  the  lowest  s/ieo/. 

His  second  remark  is — "That  olim  rendered  everlasting, 
forever,  &c.,  is  never  connected  with  sheol  in  any  shape  what- 
ever." This  is  true,  and  what  is  more — this  world  o  I  i  m  is  no 
where  connected  with  the  word  translated  heaven,  meaning 
the  place  of  future  blessedness. 

Remark  3d.  "  No  persons  are  said  to  be  alive  in  sheol,  to  be 
punished  in  any  way  by  any  means  whatever."  This  is  false 
in  two  particulars.  In  Isaiah  14.  it  is  said,  sheol  from  beneath 
is  moved  for  thee,  to  meet  thee — all  they  shall  speak  and  say 
unto  thee,  &c.  This  you  say  is  figurative.  Very  well.  But 
the  use  of  such  a  figure  presupposes  life  and  consciousness  in 
sheol.  In  regard  to  the  assertion  that  none  are  said  to  be 
punished  there,  its  falsity  appears  in  the  Psalmist's  assertion 
that  death  shall  feed  on  them  there.  But  suppose  we  grant  all 
that  is  here  asserted,  and  what  follows  ?  Cannot  a  place  of 
punishment  be  named  without  being  accompanied  with  de- 
scriptions of  the  several  inflictions  of  punishment  there  ? 

Remark  4th.  "The  Old  Testament  writers  and  modern 
christians  speak  very  differently  about  sheol  and  hell  if  both 
designate  the  same  thing."  Here  is  palpable  unfairness. 
Mr.  B.  knows  that  none  pretends  that  sheol  is  in  all  cases  sy- 
nonymous with  hell,  so  that  hell  could  properly  be  used  for  it 
where  it  means  the  grave.     It  would  be  strange  if  the  Old 


120       PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT. 

Testament  writers  should  not  use  a  word  which  most  general- 
ly meant  the  place  of  the  dead,  differently  from  our  use  of  the 
word  hell.  And  it  is  neither  their  fault  nor  ours,  that  the  Eng- 
lish word  hell,  has  not  the  same  extent  of  meaning  with  the 
Hebrew  word  sheol.  Our  author  has  some  strange  notions  about 
the  nature  and  origin  of  language.  And  p.  47,  he  arraigns 
before  him  all  the  users  of  the  English  language  for  200  years 
back,  to  ansAver  for  the  crime  of  perverting  the  meaning  of  the 
word  hell  in  the  following  terms  :  "  Who  has  been  so  kind  as 
to  make  the  world  of  future  misery  the  exclusive  sense  of  hell, 
since  the  common  translation  was  made  ?"  And  then  he  goes 
onto  give  his  charge  a  wider  range  and  a  longer  reach.  "I 
ask  why  should  hell  have  the  sense  of  future  misery  at  all." 
Sure  enough  Mr.  Balfour — why  should  there  be  a  word  to  ex- 
press such  an  idea.  But  men  ahvays  will  be  so  wicked  as  to 
have  words  to  express  their  ideas.  And  when  you  shall  suc- 
ceed to  blot  from  the  minds  of  men  every  trace  of  the  idea  of 
future  misery,  you  will  be  able  to  redeem  that  word  hell  from 
perversion.  Mr.  B.  says,  "If  tlieir  belief  ivas  the  same  as  in 
our  day,  why  do  we  never  find  them  express  that  belief,  about 
eternal  punishment,  as  is  now  done  in  books  and  sermons  and 
conference  meetings  and  in  common  conversation."  This 
question  might  be  retorted.  If  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
writers  believed  there  Avould  in  the  future  world  be  no  dif- 
ference between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  between  him 
that.serveth  God  and  him  that  serveth  him  not,  Avhy  do  we 
never  hear  them  express  tiiat  belief,  as  it  is  now  expressed  in 
books  and  sermons  and  conference  meetings?  Perhaps  if  we 
had  as  much  knowledge  of  the  books  and  sermons  and  confer- 
ence meetings  and  common  conversation  of  David  and  Solo- 
mon and  Isaiah  and  Ezra,  as  we  have  of  those  of  the  present 
day,  this  question  would  not  have  been  asked.  It  is  an  un- 
heard of  requisition,  that  the  only  book  that  has  survived  of  a 
nation  that  flourished  3,000  years  ago  shall  give  us  all  the  de- 
tail, of  what  passed  in  books  and  sermons  and  conference  meet- 
ings and  common  conversation. 


PLACE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT.       121 

Mr.  B.'s  answer  to  objections  in  the  close  of  the  chapter,  I 
am  little  concerned  to  notice.  For  as  the  objections  are 
chiefly  the  offspring  of  his  own  brain,  I  am  little  interested  to 
defend  them.  He  surely  has  the  best  right  to  determine 
whether  they  shall  live  or  die. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 


MEA>'I>"G  OF  HADES.   MEANING  OF  TARTARUS. 

Hades  is  the  word  which  the  Septuagint  translators  of  the 
Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek,  have  usually  em- 
ployed to  translate  sheGl.  And  it  has  essentially  the  cor- 
responding meaning  of  sheol.  It  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  same  sense  which  sheol  has  in  the  Old.  The 
heathen  Greeks  connected  with  their  hades,  some  of  the  cre- 
ations of  their  superstitions.  But  through  all  the  descriptions 
which  appear  in  their  poets,  the  leading  facts  of  the  Hebrew 
sheol  can  be  discovered.  The  Greek  poets  have  more  par- 
ticularly developed  their  notions  of  hades.  They  make  it  to 
be  the  region  of  the  dead,  tl^  underworld,  the  world  of  the 
dead,  and  this  subdivided  into  upper  and  lower,  the  upper  part 
being  an  Elysium,  the  abode  of  the  good,  and  the  other  a  Tar- 
tarus or  place  of  punishment  for  the  wicked.  The  word  hades 
to  which  those  who  spoke  the  Greek  language  had  given  this 
meaning  was  employed  as  the  word  to  express  the  Hebrew 
idea  of  5/<eo/.  As  sheol,  though  not  originally  expressive  of 
that,  was  capable  in  a  secondary  sense  of  expressing  the  place 
of  future  punishment,  so  hades  was  capable  of  denoting  the 
place  of  punishment.  And  as  hades  by  the  Greeks  implied 
both  a  place  of  happiness,  and  a  place  of  misery,  as  separate 
divisions  of  the  same  mansion  of  the  dead,  it  even  more  natur- 
ally answers  the  purpose  of  expressing  a  place  of  punishment. 
That  the  word  is  always  used  for  a  place  of  punishment  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  not  pretended.  Tiiat  it  has  this  meaning 
in  some  instances,  I  shall  proceed  to  show. 

Matt.  11:  2:3.  And  thou  Capernaum,  which  art  exalted  unto 
heaven,  shalt  be  brought  down  to  hell.      So  Luke  10: 15.  the 


MEANING    OF    HADES.  123 

same.  All  that  Mr.  B.  attempts  to  prove  in  relation  to  this  I 
admit.  I  admit  that  it  is  figurative  ;  that  the  city  had  never 
been  literally  exalted  to  heaven,  nor  would  as  a  city  be  literally 
cast  down  to  hell.  But  as  the  use  of  the  word  heaven  is  in  the 
sense  of  the  abode  of  the  blessed;  so  the  use  of  the  word 
hell  is  in  the  sense  of  the  opposite.  As  the  existence  of  heaven 
is  implied  in  such  a  use  of  the  word,  though  it  is  not  meant  that 
the  city  had  been  literally  exalted  to  it ;  so  the  existence  of  hell 
is  implied,  though  it  is  not  meant  that  the  city  as  such  would 
be  cast  down  to  it. 

Matt.  16:  18.  On  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.     As  courts  were  held 
and  all   public  business  transacted  at  the  gates  of  cities,  the 
gates  became  a  name  for  the  powers  and  polices  of  a  city.    So 
when  it  is  said  the  gates  oViades  shall  not  prevail  against  the 
church,  it  is  meant  all  tlie  powers,  polices  and  machinations  of 
hell,  shall  not  prevail.     Hades  here  is  set  forth  as  the  em- 
pire and  head-quartejs  of  wickedness,  and  opposition  to  the 
church— as  the  central  origin  of  all  the  v/icked  counsels,  and 
enterprizes  undertaken  against  the  church.     But  if  it  be  the 
fountain  head  of  wicked  influence  and  of  hostility  to  the  church, 
what  can  it  be  other  than  that  abode  of  everlasting  punishment, 
occupied  by  the  devil  and  his  angels  ?  The  only  plausible  eva- 
sion of  this  which  I  can  conceive  of  is,  that  hades  may  here  be 
simply  a  name  for  the  empire  of  death,  and  the  text  in  that  view 
represents  death  as  the  great  enemy  of  the  church.     But  that 
interpretation  would  greatly  diminish  the  force  of  the  passage. 
For  death  is  far  from  being  the  only,  or  the  greatest  and  most 
effectual  enemy  of  the  church.     And  does  Christ  intend  to  say 
less  than  that  no  enemy  shall  prevail  ? 

Luke  16:  22,  23.  The  rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried, 
and  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  being  in  torment.  This  para- 
ble of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  has  occasioned  much  labor  for 
both  Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  W.  But  whether  tliey  have  created  a  de- 
cent apology  for  doubting  whether  hell  be  here  intended,  you 
will  iudge.  Mr.  B.  opens  his  attack  upon  this  passage,  by  fill- 
ing out  eight  pages  in  proving,  that  tartarus  in  the  heathen 


124  MEANING    OF    HADES. 

hades  was  lictitious  or  the  mere  fancy  of  the  poets.     His   lan- 
guage here  is  very  ambiguous  ;  but  it  must  mean  either  that 
the  fancy  of  the  poets  was  employed   in  giving  the  name  of 
tartarus,  and  ascribing  the  attributes  that  were  asfcribed  to  the 
real  place,  or  it  must  mean  that  the  place  which  goes  by  that 
name,  has  no  real  existence.     I  of  course  suppose  he  means 
the  latter.     But,  it  so  happens  that  all  his  proofs,  so  far  as  they 
prove  anything,   are  confined   to  the  former.     He  proves  that 
the  fancy  of  the  heatiien  poets  attached  this  and  that  fabulous 
idea  to  tartarus.     Hut  that  there  is  in  reality  no  place  of  pun- 
ishment which  hades  or  tartarus  arc  fit  words  to  describe,  is  a 
point  which  his  arguments  do  not  touch.     There  seems  to  be 
running  through  all  the  writings  of  Mr.  B.  an  assumption  of  a 
])rinciple,  that  if  a  doctrine  or  anything  like  it  can  be  proved  to 
have  been  held  by  heathen,  that  itself  is  proof  of  the  falsity  of 
that  doctrine.     And  this  assumption  is  the  main  principle  of 
the  argument  now  before  us.     Egypt  believed  so  and  so  about 
hades,  therefore  there  is  no  hell.    Virgil  pictured  out  the  infer- 
nal regions  so  and  so,  therefore  hell  is  the  offspring  of  imagin- 
ation.    It  is  really  humiliating  to  notice  such  frivolous  prat- 
ings.     And  I  would  not  do  it,  were  it  not  that  my  silence 
would  be  taken  as  constructive  evidence  of  inability  to  ans- 
wer, what  may  appear  to  the  more  ignorant  of  Mr.  B.'s  read- 
ers as  beyond  all  the  rest  wise  and  learned. 

Mr.  B.  admits  that  at  the  time  when  this  parable  was  utter- 
ed, the  "opinion  prevailed  among  the  Jews  that  there  was  tor- 
ment in  hades"  and  he  will  have  it  that  Christ  here  speaks  in 
accordance  with  popular  opinions.  But  I  ask,  did  our  Lord 
suffer  himself  to  assert  positive  error — to  say  that  a  man  went 
to  hell  when  there  was  no  hell,  and  thus  lend  his  authority  to 
confirm  his  hearers  in  a  statement  which  it  is  worth  a  life  of 
Mr.  B.'s  learned  labors  to  refute.  But  Mr.  B  says  repeatedly, 
that  this  was  no  sanction  to  error,  no  more  than  when  he  spoke 
of  demons,  satans,  ghosts,  &c.  Thus  he  assumes  that  demons 
and  satan  were  only  imaginary  beings,  as  though  it  were  a 
given  point,  and  then  builds  a  *Aveighty  conclusion  upon  it. 
And  to  save  appearances,  he  tucks  on  that  word  ghosts,  as 


MEANING    OF    HADES.  125 

though  Christ  had  somewhere  spoken  of  ghosts  by  the  same 
principle  of  accommodation  to  popular  opinions  as  of  real 
beings.  I  hope  in  his  Third  Inquiry  he  will  inform  Us  where. 
But  look  at  it,  Mr.  B.  tells  us  that  Christ's  hearers  believed  that 
there  was  torment  in  hades,  and  yet  that  when  Christ  told 
tliem  there  was  torment  in  hades,  he  was  not  liable  to  be  un- 
derstood as  confirming  the  opinion  that  there  was.  Pray  tell 
us  how  Christ's  hearers  could  decide,  on  such  principles,  when 
he  intended  to  speak  the  truth  and  when  he  did  not. 

When  Mr.  B.  comes  to  the  question,  what  did  our  Lord 
mean  to  teach  by  so  representing  hades  as  a  place  of  torment, 
he  says — "  This  question  may  be  answered  by  what  did  he 
mean  to  teach  when  he  spoke  of  demons  and  of  satan  as  real 
beings  ?"  Well,  what  did  he  mean  to  teach  ?  I  see  not  that  this 
answers  the  question.  But  it  is  all  the  answer  which  our  au- 
thor gives,  and  we  must  be  content  with  it. 

We  will  turn  our  attention  now  to  Mr.  Whittemore's  at- 
tempt to  explain  away  this  passage.  His  first  position  is,  that 
"allowing  the  passage  to  be  a  literal  account  and  not  a  para- 
ble, it  fails  altogether  of  substantiating  either  the  doctrine  of 
the  Calvinists  concerning  election  and  reprobation,  or  of  the 
Arminian  doctrine,  concerning  rewards  and  punishments  in  the 
future  state,  for  the  conduct  of  men  in  this  life."  Very  good. 
If  any  Calvinist  ever  came  to  this  passage  for  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  election,  he  certainly  failed  of  finding  it  there. 
And  if  any  Arminian  frames  any  peculiar  notions  of  his  upon 
this  passage,  let  him  answer  it  to  Mr.  Whittemore. 

He  next  says,  "allowing  the  parable  to  be  a  literal  account  and 
not  a  parable,  it  does  not  prove  that  men  are  to  be  punished 
in  the  next  life  for  their  conduct  in  this,  and  that  because  the 
rich  man  tormented  in  hades  was  in  some  respects  a  good  man." 
Then  he  goes  on  to  prove,  that  the  rich  man  was  very  benevo- 
lent and  holy,  by  alledging  that  he  fed  Lazarus  from  the 
crumbs  of  his  table,  and  that  Lazarus  was  so  pinched  with 
hunger,  that  he  "  delighted"  to  be  fed  even  with  crumbs.  He 
informs  us  by  the  way,  that  the  word  means  delighted  instead 
of  desired.     So  much  for  his  benevolence.     And  then  as  to  his 

n 


126  MEANING    OF    HADES. 

holiness,  that  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that  he  prayed  to  Abra- 
ham, that  his  brethren  might  be  warned  not  to  come  to  that 
place.  He  calls  this  the  breathing  of  a  holy  feeling.  But 
what  holiness  there  is  in  praying  to  Father  Abraham,  and  ii> 
dreading  to  have  a  man's  torments  aggravated  by  the  presence 
of  those  who  shared  in  his  guilt,  does  not  appear.  Here  are 
the  proofs  of  the  man's  piety  such  as  Mr.  W.  relies  on  to  show 
tliat  his  torments  were  not  on  account  of  his  wickedness. 
But  one  would  think  that  his  wish  to  have  his  brethren  warned 
to  shape  their  conduct  so  as  not  to  come  to  that  place  of  torment, 
is  proof  that  he  was  convinced  that  his  conduct  brought 
him  there — and  the  not  hearing  Moses  being  brought  in  as 
the  ground  of  their  danger,  would  settle  the  question.  What 
is  it  to  hear  and  obey  Moses  and  the  prophets  ?  Is  not  he  a 
wicked  man  who  refuses  to  hear  ?  And  then  if  conduct  had  no 
influence  in  bringing  those  torments,  why  should  his  brethren 
be  warned  lest  they  also  come  ? 

Mr.  W.  tells  us  there  were  some  with  Abraham,  who  would 
go  to  the  rich  man,  but  could  not.  But  the  parable  tells  us  no 
such  thing.  It  does  not  say  that  there  are  any  who  wish  to 
pass,  but  chooses  a  simple  way  of  saying  that  there  is  a  com- 
plete non-intercourse,  and  none  could  pass  if  they  would. 
Equal  force  will  be  found  in  the  following  suggestions,  that 
"hell  cannot  be  so  hot  a  place,  as  it  has  been  represented,  or 
the  rich  man  would  have  called  for  more  than  a  drop  of  water," 
and  this,  that  the  "devil  could  not  be  pleased  to  have  so  be- 
nevolent a  prayer  offered  in  his  dark  dominions."  These  are 
the  reasonings  on  which  men  are  invited  to  risk  their  eternal 
all — by  which  new  and  great  light  is  pretended  to  be  poured 
upon  the  holy  Scriptures. 

Our  author's  argument,  constructed  to  show  that  the  passage 
is  a  parable  is  useless,  for  we  are  ready  to  admit  it.  We  con- 
ceive the  same  truths  are  inculcated  by  it  whether  it  be  narra- 
tive of  real  fact,  or  a  parable.  Take  the  parable  of  the  sower 
which  Christ  himself  interprets.  He  does  not  bring  out  the 
meaning  through  the  question  whether  it  was  narrative  or  lit- 
eral fact — whether  such  a  sower  went  out  and  sowed  in  such 


MEANING    OF    HADES.  127 

away  and  compassed  such  results  or  not.  But  when  he  coraes 
to  the  interpretation,  he  uses  the  story  to  illustrate  his  general 
truths,  as  if  it  were  narrative  of  real  life.  This  then,  Christ 
himself  being  judge,  is  the  proper  way  to  interpret  parables. 
Whether  such  a  rich  man  and  such  a  Lazarus  lived  and  died 
and  came  to  such  ends,  is  immaterial.  But  we  are  to  under- 
stand that  the  results  of  huonan  conduct  in  the  life  and  the 
state  of  men  in  the  future  life,  are  as  this  narrative  in  its  essen- 
tial features  represents. 

I  make  the  limitation  in  the  last  clause  with  regard  to  essen- 
tial features,  for  this  is  made  in  all  interpretations  of  rhetorical 
imagery.  A  parable  is  never  to  be  made  (to  use  a  homely  yet 
technical  phrase)  "to  run  on  all  fours."  When  Lazarus  is 
represented  as  in  Ahraham's  bosom,  we  are  not  to  understand 
a  literal  dwelling  in  a  man's  bosom.  When  the  rich  man  is 
said  to  have  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  to  put  forth  other  bodily  ac- 
tions, these  expressions  argue  no  more  against  the  fact,  that 
the  parable  is  descriptive  of  the  condition  of  spirits  in  the  spir- 
itual world,  than  the  use  of  bodily  organs  everywhere  attribu- 
ted to  God,  proves  that  God  is  not  a  spirit.  These  expressions 
are  the  proper  results  of  the  imperfections  of  human  language 
and  human  conceptions,  in  relation  to  matters  of  the  invisible 
Avorld.  But  if  this  parable  is  interpreted  according  to  the  rules 
above  stated,  none  can  doubt  of  its  bearings  on  the  subject 
before  us. 

I  now  proceed  to  notice  Mr.  W.'s  interpretation,  in  which  he 
undertakes  to  tell  us  what  the  parable  means.  In  order  to 
give  some  air  of  plausibility  to  his  statements,  he  pretends  that 
the  verse  preceding  the  parable  is  related  to  it  as  its  introduc- 
tion. The  verse  is  this — Whosoever  putteth  away  his  wife 
and  marrieth  another  committeth  adultery,  and  whosoever  mar- 
rieth  her  that  is  put  away  from  her  husband  committeth  adul- 
tery. Upon  this  our  author  thus  remarks  :  "If  the  Jews  had 
put  away  the  law,  and  married  another  covenant  before  John 
came,  they  in  a  parabolic  sense,  would  have  committed  adul- 
tery. For  infinite  wisdom  ordained  that  the  law  should  re- 
main until  John,  and  it  ordained  that  it  should  remain  no  long- 


128  MEANING    OF    HADES. 

er.  For  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached. 
The  law  was  put  away,  it  was  fulfilled.  The  Jews  by  reject- 
ing the  gospel  and  adhering  to  the  law,  committed  adultery, 
as  would  a  man  that  should  marry  a  woman  that  had  been  put 
away  by  her  husband."  Let  no  man  after  this  despair  of  the 
solution  of  any  problem  in  biblical  interpretation !  It  seems,  ac- 
cording to  this,  that  the  wife  (the  law)  is  put  away  not  by  the  act 
of  the  husband,  (the  Jewish  nation,)  nor  by  her  own  act,  but  by 
that  of  a  third  person.  And  so  put  away  that  it  is  adultery 
even  for  her  own  husband,  to  receive  her,  after  she  had  been 
forced  from  him.  And  that  he  commits  adultery  if  he  refuses 
to  marry  another,  that  is  the  new  covenant.  This  is  a  strange 
species  of  adultery.  But  not  more  strange  than  the  original 
marriage.  The  Jewish  nation  it  seems,  was  married  to,  not 
joined  in  or  by  a  covenant,  to  another  party — but  married  to  a 
marriage  covenant — took  a  marriage  covenant  for  a  wife.  And 
this  we  are  told  is  marriage  and  adultery  in  a  parabolic  sense. 
Parabolic  sense !  nay,  arrant  nonsense!  Whether  the  man 
himself  is  a  fool  or  whether  he  calculates  upon  all  his  readers 
being  fools,  I  vv'ill  not  decide. 

But  as  to  the  connexion  of  the  parable  with  the  preceding 
vei-se,  Christ  said,  verse  16.  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  un- 
til John  ;  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached  and 
every  man  presseth  into  it.  That  is,  the  Old  Testament  insti- 
tutions were  of  force  until  John.  But  these  now  so  far  as  in- 
consistent withjor  as  they  have  been  fulfilled  by,thc  introduction 
of  the  gospel,  are  no  longer  binding.  But  lest  any  should  think 
that  the  eternal  principles  of  God's  law  were  to  suffer  mutila- 
tion, he  adds,  that  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass, 
than  one  tittle  of  the  laAv  to  fail,  so  he  gives  them  to  under- 
stand that  no  essential  principle  of  the  moral  lav/  is  repealed 
bv  abolishing  the  national  ordinances  and  institutions  of  the 
Jews  which  had  their  end  and  fulfilment  in  the  coming  of 
Christ.  And  in  the  verse  respecting  adultery,  he  illustrates 
the  case  by  a  strong  example.  Moses  desired  to  prevent  all 
unnecessary  divorces,  but  was  unable  to  do  it  without  a  greater 
evil  to  the  state,  and  so  for  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  he 


MEANING    OF    HADES.  129 

suffered  a  man  to  put  aAvay  his  wife  for  other  causes  than  that 
of  adultery.  But  Christ  took  away  this  permission,  and  as- 
serted the  doctrine  in  the  verse  before  us.  The  scope  then 
of  the  passage  is  this, — by  the  change  of  dispensations  not  a 
tittle  of  the  moral  law,  suffers  a  change  ;  as  may  be  seen  in 
the  example  of  the  change  which  has  been  made  by  it  in  the 
law  of  divorce,  which  is  only  the  rectifying  of  the  imperfections 
of  ecclesiastical  institutions,  and  bringing  the  statutes  of  the 
church  to  a  more  perfect  correspondence  with  the  unalterable 
principles  of  right  But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  para- 
ble of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus?  A  new  subject  is  commenc- 
ed in  the  opening  of  this  parable. 

Mr.  B.  makes  the  rich  man  to  represent  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  the  poor  man  the  Gentiles.  The  rich  man  in  hell  he 
makes  that  nation,  cast  off  for  their  sins.  And  the  great  gulf 
is  the  combmation  of  circumstances  which  go  to  keep  asun- 
der the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  But  before  this  is  admitted  we 
shall  want  a  rational  answer  to  some  such  questions  as  these : 
Is  this  gulf  separating  Jews  and  Gentiles  such  that  they  which 
would  come  from  them  cannot  ?  Cannot  the  Jews  come  to  the 
embrace  of  Christianity  if  they  will  ?  And  what  was  the  mer- 
cy of  a  drop  of  water  begged  of  Lazarus  ?  To  this  Mr.  W.  ans- 
wers by  proxy,  "  The  Jewish  people  longed  for  one  drop  of 
the  former  legal  sprinklings  and  purifications  to  refresh  their 
tongue,  that  they  might  confidently  say  to  us  that  the  law  was 
still  efficacious  and  availing."  But  these  legal  sprinklings  are 
a  boon  for  which  they  are  not  dependent  on  Christians,  and 
they  were  never  applied  to  the  tongue  nor  for  purposes  of 
cooling.  And  then  when  have  the  Jews  stood  in  such  a  pos- 
ture of  humble  supplication  before  the  Gentiles  in  any  case  ? 
And  where  were  his  fatiier's  house  and  his  five  brethren  to  which 
he  wished  Lazarus  to  be  sent  to  testify  ?  Are  there  any  other 
Jewish  nations  in  danger  of  being  cast  off  and  coming  to  that 
place  of  torment?  Do  you  say  they  were  parts  of  this  same 
nation  ?  But  the  rich  man  is  made  to  personate  the  nation,  and 
if  the  whole  nation  was  the  person  praying,  who  were  his 
brethren  ?   And  are  Jews  wont  to  supplicate  the  Gentiles  for 

11* 


130  MEANING    OF    HADES. 

the  extension  of  gospel  influences  ?  And  liow  is  it  that  the  five 
brethren  were  to  be  kept  from  that  place  of  torment  by  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  and  not  by  the  gospel  ?  The  gospel  in  the 
peculiar  phraseology  of  Mr.  W.,  is  the  covenant  to  which 
the  church  has  been  married,  since  the  Jews  were  cast  off, 
and  since  they  have  been  supplicating  for  a  drop  of  legal 
sprinkling.  And  it  would  be  adultery  for  those  five  brethren 
to  marry  Moses  and  the  prophets.  Then  how  comes  it  that 
Lazarus,  that  is  the  Gentiles,  if  he  go  to  the  five  brethren, 
must  go  from  the  dead,  when  they  are  spoken  of  as  not  per- 
suadable by  one  risen  from  the  dead  ?  Are  the  church,  those 
who  have  the  gospel  to -dispense  to  others,  the  dead,  while  the 


ivino- 


apostate  Jews  are  the  1 

The  dying  of  Lazarus  is  made  a  figure  for  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles.  But  v/hat  similitude  is  there  between  the  dying  of 
a  man  and  the  rising  of  the  Gentile  world  to  the  glorious  light 
of  the  gospel  ?  One  would  think  it  should  be  rather  life  from 
the  dead — especially,  if  death  be  taken  in  the  Universalist 
sense,  a  dark  annihilation  sealed  upon  the  spirit  till  the  resur- 
rection. Really,  Mr.  Whittemorc,  are  there  not  some  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  your  ingenious  interpretation  ?  But  suppose 
we  quietly  digest  all  this  trash  thus  far  ;  hades  you  say  is  us- 
ed figuratively  v/hen  made  a  place  of  torment.  But  does  not 
a  figurative  sense  pre-suppose  the  possibility  of  a  literal  sense? 
Now  if  the  parts  of  this  story,  such  as  the  soul's  entering  the 
invisible  world  at  death,  and  suffering  happiness  or  misery 
there,  were  not  admitted  and  familiar  ideas,  how  came  they  to 
be  used  as  figures  to  set  forth  something  else  ?  Further,  both 
Mr.  W.  and  Mr.  B.  tell  us,  that  this  parable,  or  something  very 
like  it,  is  found  in  the  Gemara  Babylonicum,  and  that  it  is  used 
by  Christ  as  a  quotation.  Suppose  we  admit  it,  and  what  fol- 
lows ?  Jf  it  was  composed  originally  so  long  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  it  was  not  composed  to  pre-figure  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews,  and  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  For  the  idea  of  that  rejec- 
tion was  far  from  having  a  place  in  the  current  literature  of 
those  times.  Do  you  say  that  though  originally  constructed 
for  another  purpose,  it  was  capable  of  being  accommodated  to 


MEANING    OF    TARTARUS.  131 

this  purpose  ?  Well,  but  where  do  you  find  your  reasons  for 
applying  it  at  all  to  this  subject,  if  not  from  the  very  frame  and 
structure  of  the  parable  itself?  But  if  that  structure  was  oiig- 
inally  adapted  to  something  else,  wliy  not  now  ?  So  by  your 
own  showing,  your  interpretation  is  not  the  most  natural  and 
obvious.  The  truth  is,  no  man  would  have  thought  of  putting 
such  a  construction  upon  such  a  parable,  did  not  the.  occasions 
of  a  rotten  system  demand  it — did  he  not  feel  himself  driven  to 
the  desperate  expedient  of  silencing  testimony  which  he  can- 
not face.  When  a  man  undertakes  to  force  the  language  of 
the  Bible  into  harmony  with  systems  so  abhorrent  to  tiie  true 
scopeand  spirit  of  the  Bible,  into  what  v/retched  absurdities  is  he 
unconsciously  led !  What  a  miserable  business  is  this  of  wrest- 
ing the  Scriptures!  To  say  nothing  of  the  violence  done  to  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Bible  and  its  author — of  the  violence 
done  to  conscience,  a  man  embarked  in  this  enterprise  be- 
comes in  relation  to  these  subjects,  strangely  abandoned  of 
common  sense.  His  invention  will  be  fertile  in  expedients  to 
throw  an  air  of  plausibility  over  false  positions,  and  make  the 
worse  appear  the  better  reason.  But  he  will  in  the  mean  time 
be  guilty  of  such  reasonings  as  in  another  man,  and  on  other 
subjects,  he  himself  would  see  to  be  supremely  ridiculous. 

1  take  it  then  that  the  testimony  of  this  parable,  to  the  truth 
that  hades  sometimes  means  a  place  of  torment,  is  unim- 
paired. There  are  several  instances  of  the  use  of  the  word  in 
Revelation,  in  which  to^  my  mind  the  word  seems  indirectly  to 
imply  a  place  of  punishment  in  hades.  But  they  are  such  in- 
stances as  I  should  not  rely  upon  for  proof  of  a  doctrine. 

MEANIXG    OF    TARTARUS. 

2  Peter  2:  4.  For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  Lhat  sinned,  but 
cast  them  down  to  hell  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness, to  be  reserved  unto  judgment.  Here  is  not  the  word  tor- 
faru5,  but  the  verb  derived  from  it,  tartarosas,  which  amounts 
to  the  same  thing  as  to  the  question  before  us.  In  this  case 
the  context  is  so  decisive  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  that 
if  it  had  been  left  a  blank  we  could  not  fill  the  blank  with  any- 


132  ME  ANTING    OF    TARTARUS. 

thing  short  of  that  which  means  a  place  of  the  future  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked.  I  sliall  first  adduce  some  considerations 
independent  of  the  context,  and  then  consider  the  evidence 
which  conies  from  that.  If  the  question  were  to  be  settled  by 
the  classical  use  of  the  word  taiiarus,  there  could  not  be  a 
doubt.  For  rarely  is  it  used  in  Greek  authors  in  any  other 
sense  than  that  of  a  place  of  punishment,  and  it  is  only 
when  the  writers  speak  of  the  whole  of  the  under  world  as 
a  regio7i  of  gloom,  that  they  call  it  tariarus.  This  fact  was 
stated  by  Mr.  Stuart;  and  Mr.  Balfour  in  his  reply  did  not  de- 
ny it.  This  kind  of  proof  Mr.  B.  attempts  to  evade  by  saying 
that  the  tartarus  of  the  Greeks  was  an  imaginary  place  of 
punishment.  This  is  an  objection  which  Mr.  Stuart  has  an- 
ticipated in  the  following  terms — "  We  may  allow  the  premises, 
without,  in  any  measure,  feeling  ourselves  moved  to  the  con- 
clusion. Did  not  the  Greek  Theos  designate  an  imaginary 
God?  Was  not  his  ouranos  and  his  elusion  (elysium) 
imaginary  ?  And  yet  when  a  Hebrew  writer  employs  Theos 
and  our  an  OS  does  it  designate  nothing  real,  nothing  differ- 
ent from  the  idea  that  a  heathen  Greek  expressed  by  these 
words  ? — Peter  when  he  wrote  Greek,  was  obliged  to  use  the 
Greek  language  as  he  found  it  already  made.  What  term, 
then,  in  order  to  express  the  horrors  of  future  punishment, 
could  he  select  from  the  whole  Greek  language,  which  was 
more  significant  than  tartarosas?  Until  this  question  be 
answered,  I  know  not  how  to  avoid  the  conclusion  here  that 
the  apostle  does  refer  to  a  future  and  endless  punishment." 
To  tills  Mr.  B.  replies  that  Theos  and  ouranos  are  used 
more  frequently  than  tartarus,  and  therefore,  the  cases 
are  not  parallel.  Not  parallel  in  respect  to  what.^  The  num- 
ber of  times  in  which  they  are  used.  But  as  to  the  manner 
and  nature  of  the  use,  exactly  parallel — as  Mr.  B.  by  not  show- 
ing, leaves  us  to  believe.  But  he  goes  on  to  say — "Had  the 
Scripture  writers  only  used  Theos  and  ouranos  once, 
how  could  you  be  certain  that  they  attached  to  them  those  pe- 
culiarities of  meaning,  which  may  be  sought  for  in  vain  from 
the  classic  authors  to  designate  the  true  God  or  a  true  heav- 


MEANING    OF    TARTARUS.  133 

en?"  Surely  you  might  be  certain  that  they  used  them  in  a 
new  and  peculiar  sense  or  in  the  old  classical  sense,  and 
Mr.  B.  may  choose  which  he  will  have  it.  If  Theos  had 
been  used  but  once,  say  in  the  instance — "  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,"  or  in  the  phrase,  "  the  Son  of  God" — would  any  one 
doubt  whether  the  God  of  the  heathen  or  the  true  God  were 
meant?  No  more  reason  is  there  to  believe  that  tar  tar  us 
was  used  for  the  heathen  hell.  So  much  for  the  meaning  of 
the  word  tartar  us. 

We  will  now  direct  our  attention  to  the  manner  in  which 
it  is  here  used.  That  a  place  of  punishment  is  meant,  is  evi- 
dent, because  the  writer  is  speaking  directly  of  punishment. 
In  the  verse  preceding  he  says,  whose  judgment  now  of  along 
time  lingereth  not ;  and  whose  damnation  slurabereth  not.  And 
he  then  proceeds — For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sin- 
ned, but  cast  them  doAvn  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains 
of  darkness  to  be  reserved  unto  judgment  ;  and  he  then  goes 
on  to  enumerate  other  examples,  as  God's  bringing  the  flood 
upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly,  and  his  overthroAv  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrha.  Mr.  B.  informs  us  that  the  "  angels  that  sinned" 
here  m?an  Korah  and  bjj  CGmpiny.  Eut  thcre  are  some  small 
difficulties  in  the  way.  The  writer  in  citing  other  examples 
follows  the  order  of  time,  mentioning  the  flood  first,  and  Sod- 
om's destruction  after  ;  but  this  interpretation  would  put  Ko- 
rah's  destruction  before  the  flood.  Then  v/e  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  churches  to  whom  Peter  wrote,  had  been  ac- 
customed to  call  Korah  and  his  company  a  company  of  angels, 
and  that  they  would  know  that  he  meant  them  by  that  name. 
Then  the  angels  are  said  to  be  delivered  into  chains  of  confine- 
ment, as  if  in  prison,  which  is  no  natural  phraseology  to  ex- 
press the  matter  of  dying,  or  the  particular  death  supposed. 
Then  it  is  said  they  are  reserved  unto  judgment — which  is  not 
true  of  Korah's  company  on  Mr.  B.'s  hypothesis.  According 
to  his  system,  Korah's  company  remain  in  blank  annihilation, 
till  they  shall,  at  the  end  of  the  world,  awake  to  a  heavenly  ex- 
istence. But  such  a  difficulty  as  this,  is  nothing  in  the  way  of 
Mr.  Balfour^     He  tells  us  th^t  the  judgment  nieans  the   deS' 


134  MEANING    OF    TARTARUS. 

truction  of  Jerusalem.  Read  his  marvellous  wisdom. — "Now 
though  Korah  and  his  company  were  punished  on  the  spot  for 
their  rebellion,  yet  we  are  told  all  the  sins  of  the  Jews  as  a  na- 
tion, which  had  been  committed  during  past  ages  were  at  that 
time  visited  on  the  nation.  On  that  generation  came  all  the 
righteous  blood  which  had  been  shed  on  the  earth."  But  to 
make  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  a  judgment  to  Korah,  is  in- 
verting the  rule  of  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
children.  It  is  visiting  the  iniquities  of  children  upon  fath- 
ers forty  generations  back.  It  is  carrying  back  the  visitation 
instead  of  carrying  it  forward.  I  can  understand  how  the  blood 
of  Abel  can  be  required  of  that  generation  of  the  Jews,  but  not 
how  the  inflictions  of  God's  wrath  on  Jerusalem  can  be  called 
the  judgment  upon  Cain. 

As  there  is  not  in  text  or  context  an  allusion  to  the  history 
of  Korah,  it  is  incumbent  on  Mr.  B.  to  prove  that  Korah  and 
his  company  had  at  the  time,  when  Peter  wrote,  currently  pass- 
ed under  the  name  of  angels,  so  that  men  in  all  parts  of  the 
world  whither  Peter's  letter  was  directed,  would  recognize  the 
meaning  at  once.  This  is  not  attempted.  To  prove  that  the 
angels  are  here  meant,  he  tells  us  that  Korah  and  his  company 
were  two  hundred  and  fifty  princes,  who  might  with  as  much 
propriety  be  called  angels  as  men  might  be  so  called,  in  case  of 
the  angels  of  the  churches  in  Revelation.  But  then  the  con- 
nexion interprets  the  meaning  plainly,  and  the  reader  is  not 
left  in  doubt.  But  here  it  is  said  "  the  angels  that  sinned"  as 
though  every  reader  would  know  what  angels,  and  yet  we  are 
invited  to  believe  that  Peter  had  his  eye  on  an  event  to  which 
there  is  no  allusion,  and  nothing  to  lead  us  to  suppose  such  an 
event  was  intended.  Mr.  B.  says  as  the  second  reason,  that 
Korah  and  his  company  sinned,  and  lost  their  station  thereby. 
Granted.  Thirdly,  he  says  the  connexion  favors  his  view  of 
the  subject.  Let  the  reader  decide  that.  Under  this  head  he 
says,  "  Certainly  all  will  allow  it  is  not  the  custom  of  the  sa- 
cred writers  to  blend  in  this  way  examples  of  God's  justice  on 
men  and  angels  together.  If  it  is  done  here,  another  ex- 
ample of  the  kind  cannot  be  produced  from  the  Bible."    This 


MEANING    OF    TARTARUS.  135 

assertion  would  amount  to  little  if  true.  But  is  not  here  an 
example  of  the  kind— Depart  ye  cursed  into  everlasting  fire 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels?  (See  also  Jude  6.)  Is  not 
that  God's  judgment  on  men  and  angels  together?  Fourthly, 
he  suggests  that  this  judgment  on  the  angels,  is  held  up  as  a 
warning  to  ungodly  men— which  it  could  not  be  if  it  were  a 
judgment  on  angelic  spirits,  since  no  man  has  seen  the  angels 
punished  or  had  any  means  of  knowing  the  fact  if  it  were  true. 
It  rested  entirely  on  Peter  and  Jude's  statements.  Are  not 
Peter  and  Jude's  statements  so  much  in  point  worthy  of  credit  ? 
If  not,  we  have  that  of  Christ  more  in  point.  I  beheld  satan  as 
lightning  fall  from  heaven.  This  evidently  alludes  to  satan's 
original  apostasy,  as  tiie  context  will  show.  John  also  says— 
The  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning.  Which  is  as  much  as 
to  say,  that  sin  began  in  the  apostasy  of  the  devil,  and  the  next 
sentence  shows  his  agency  in  the  sins  of  this  world.  For  this 
purpose  the  son  of  God  was  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy 
the  works  of  the  devil.  And  Jude's  testimony  is— And  the  an- 
gels which  kept  not  their  first  estate  but  left  their  own  habita- 
tion, hath  he  reserved  in  everlasting  chains,  under  darkness, 
unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day. 

How  a  man  can  have  a  face  to  write  and  print  such  glaring 
perversions  of  language  so  plain,  is  a  mystery  of  no  easy  solu- 
tion. Sure  I  am  that  the  mind  comes  to  this  belief  of  such  per- 
versions of  truth,  if  it  ever  does  believe  them,  while  entertain- 
ing little  adequate  sense  of  the  solemn  import  of  the  question 
at  issue.  How  differently  men  think  and  reasop  upon  such  a 
subject  while  in  the  midst  of  life  and  health,  from  what  they 
would  while  standing  on  the  brink  of  the  eternal  world  !  Now, 
the  question  can  be  agitated  with  as  little  sense  of  personal 
interest,  as  if  it  were  a  problem  in  mathematics.  But  the  hour 
is  coming  to  all,  when  this  question  will  stand  out  in  a  light 
far  different. 


CHAPTER    IX. 


THE    MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 


This  like  all  other  words,  applied  to  the  scenes  of  the  fu- 
ture world,  was  originally  applied  to  what  existed  in  this  world. 
In  its  primary  sense,  it  was  a  name  for  a  valley  adjacent  to 
Jerusalem.  It  is  a  compound  word,  signifying  the  valley  of 
Hinnom.  It  was  anciently  a  delightful  valley,  shaded  with  a 
delightful  grove,  and  here  the  idolatrous  Israelites  established 
the  worship  of  Moloch,  and  sacrificed  their  own  children  to 
the  idol  by  burning  them.  The  valley  is  also  called  Tophet 
from  the  Hebrew  word  Toph,  signifying  a  drum,  because 
drums  were  beaten  to  drown  the  cries  of  the  victims.  After 
the  captivity,  this  spot  was  regarded  with  abhorrence  on  ac- 
count of  these  abominations.  And  following  the  example  of 
Josiah,  the  Jews  threw  into  it  every  species  of  filth,  the  car- 
cases of  animals,  and  the  dead  bodies  of  malefactors.  And  to 
prevent  a  pestilence  arising  from  such  a  mass  of  putrifaction, 
constant  fires  were  maintained  in  the  valley,  in  order  to  con- 
sume the  whole.  By  an  easy  metaphor,  the  Jews  who  could 
imagine  no  severer  torment  than  that  of  fire,  transferred  that 
name  to  the  place  of  the  infernal  fire — to  that  part  of  hades 
which  they  supposed  to  be  inhabited  by  demons  and  the  souls 
of  wicked  men  suffering  punishment.  So  much  I  suppose  is 
admitted  by  all.  That  the  word  is  not  used  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  sense  of  hell,  I  freely  concede.  That  it  is  rarely  if 
ever  used  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  granted  by  my  opponents.  That  it  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  in  a  transferred  sense,  Mr.  B.  fully 
concedes.  What  this  transferred  sense  is,  is  the  question  now 
before  us.  This  we  will  attempt  to  settle  by  an  examination 
of  the  particular  passages  where  it  occurs. 


MEANING    O:?    GEHENNA.  137 

Matt  5:  22.  But  whosoever  shall  say  thou  fool,  shall  be  in 
danger  of  hell  fire.  Here  I  agree  with  Mr.  B.  that  the  word 
ie  in  no  case  to  be  understood  of  such  a  punishment  as  burning 
alive  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  This  passage  lias  its  difficulties  of 
interpretation,  but  to  my  mind  none  of  the  difficulty  lies  in  de- 
termining that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  not  the  punish- 
ment here  intended  by  hell  fire.  Something  more  than  Schleus- 
ner's  authority  unsupported  by  the  reasons  on  which  it  rests 
is  needful  to  convince  me  that  among  the  Jews  "any  severe 
punishment  especially  a  shameful  kind  of  death  was  denomin- 
ated Gehenna.''^  Mr.  Balfour  finds  but  one  meaning  to  the 
word,  making  it  in  all  cases  a  name  for  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem whenever  it  is  used  in  the  gospels.  Where  then  is 
his  evidence  that  it  is  used  in  that  indeterminate  sense  ?  And 
then  there  is  no  evidence  external  or  internal,  that  Christ  used 
the  word  or  that  his  hearers  would  understand  him  of  the  des- 
truction of  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  allusion  in  the  context,  and 
nothing  Which  would  guide  the  mind  of  Christ's  hearers  to 
such  a  meaning,  unless  that  meaning  by  use  had  become  dis- 
tinctly, and  familiarly  appropriated  to  the  word.  And  tiiat  was 
impossible,  for  Jerusalem's  destruction  was  not  generally  sus- 
pected, when  the  sermon  on  the  mount  was  delivered,  and  of 
course  such  a  meaning  of  the  word  could  not  come  into  gen- 
eral use. 

But  Mr.  B.  says  no  one  supposes  the  two  first,  i.  e.  the  judg- 
and  the  council  to  refer  to  a  future  state,  and  asks,  why  should 
the  third  ?  To  this,  it  is  enough  to  reply,  that  no  one  supposes 
that  the  two  first  refer  to  national  calamities,  and  why  should 
the  third  ?  Suppose  a  public  speaker,  were  to  say  of  a  certain 
course  of  wickedness,  that  it  leads  to  the  prison,  to  the  gal- 
lows, and  to  hell.  You  might  say  v/ith  as  much  reason,  the 
two  first  do  not  refer  to  a  future  state,  why  then  should  the 
third  ? 

Mr.  B.  asks- -"Is  the  crime  of  calling  a  brother  a  fool  so 
much  worse  than  the  other  two?"  I  answer,  the  climax  in  the 
text  is  something  of  this  nature — The  first  punishment  cal- 
led judgment,  was  a  punishment  by  death,  adjudged  by  the 

12 


138  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

lower  court,  the  second  was  death,  pronounced  by  the  highest 
authority,  and  inflicted  in  the  most  appalling  forms,  and  the 
third  must  be  a  punishment  adjudged  by  the  highest  of  all 
courts,  the  court  of  heaven.  We  are  not  to  understand  this 
passage  as  a  statement  of  the  comparative  guilt  of  the  three 
sins,  but  as  a  powerful  representation  of  the  fact,  that  sins  of 
mere  intention  and  words,  are  in  the  sight  of  God  as  offensive 
as  more  overt  actions.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them 
of  old  time  thou  shalt  not  kill,  and  whosoever  shall  kill  shall  be 
in  danger  of  the  judgment,  (death  adjudged  by  the  lower 
court.)  But  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  broth- 
er without  a  cause,  is  guilty  of  that  which  in  God's  esteem  is  the 
same  as  murder.  And  so  of  the  rest — To  say  to  his  brother, 
Raca,  that  is  to  give  expression  to  that  causeless  anger,  is 
with  more  propriety  counted  as  murder.  And  to  call  a  brother 
a  fool  (a  miscreant)  in  anger,  is  in  God's  esteem,  a  sin  for 
which  there  is  no  adequate  punishment  this  side  of  hell  fire. 
In  this  understanding  of  the  passage,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see 
why  calling  a  brother  a  fool  should  be  represented  as  such  a 
crime.  The  design  seems  to  be  not  so  much  to  make  a  com- 
parison between  the  three  sins,  as  to  represent  all  the  three, 
as  guilty  far  beyond  the  common  apprehensions  of  men. 
Having  answered  Mr.  B.'s  question,  we  might  now  retort  it 
upon  him.  Why  should  calling  a  brother  a  fool  expose  one 
to  shame  in  Jerusalem's  destruction,  rather  than  the  other  two  ? 
He  shows  wherein  it  was  a  great  crime  to  call  a  brother  a  fool, 
but  not  what  particular  relation  that  crime  had  to  the  national 
judgments  then  impending,  rather  than  the  other  two.  That 
gehenna  in  this  passage  means  anything  else  than  hell,  remains 
yet  to  be  proved. 

Matt.  10:  28.  Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body  but  are  not 
able  to  kill  the  soul.  But  rather  fear  him  who  is  able  to  de- 
stroy both  soul  and  body  in  hell.  I  have  already  considered 
Mr.  B.'s  views  of  this  passage,  p.  23.  The  question  whether 
gehenna  here  means  hell,  turns  on  the  question  whether  a  man 
has  a  soul  to  be  destroyed  in  hell.  I  think  I  have  shown  the 
absurdity  of  the  position,  that  though  a  man  has  no  soul,  he  has 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  139 

a  life  in  danger  of  being  killed  after  the  body  is  dead.  But  if 
it  be  granted  that  a  man  has  a  soul,  capable  of  being  destroyed 
after  the  body  is  dead,  it  will  follow  that  gehenna  is  the  place, 
where  destruction  is  inflicted  on  the  soul  after  the  death  of 
•  the  body. 

Matt.  18:  9.  If  thine  eye  offend  thee  pluck  it  out,  and  cast  it 
from  thee ;  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  with  one  eye, 
rather  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire.  Mr.  B.'s 
first  reason  why  geheima  here  may  not  mean  hell,  is,  that  Christ 
was  speaking  to  his  own  disciples.  Well,  what  if  he  was  ?  Did 
not  they  need  to  be  urged  to  self-denials,  by  a  consideration  of 
the  danger  of  hell?  And  did  not  the  urging  after  all  prove  of 
none  effect  upon  one  of  their  number  ?  He  next  asserts  that 
in  no  instance  where  Christ  speaks  of  gehenna  was  the  future 
state  a  subject  of  discourse.  But  this  is  asserting  the  very 
point  in  dispute.  But  he  spends  his  chief  labor  in  an  attempt  to 
explain  away  the  fact,  that  everlasting  fire,  and  the  fire  ofgehen- 
n'a,  are  here  used  as  meaning  the  same  thing.  Having  consid- 
ered at  sufficient  length  the  use  of  the  word  tiverlasting,  when 
applied  to  punishment,  I  have  no  occasion  to  follow  him  through 
his  attempt  to  prove  that  everlasting  fire  does  not  mean  hell. 
I  take  it  as  proved,  in  a  previous  chapter,  that  everlasiing  fire  is 
no  other  than  the  fire  of  hell,  and  I  discover  nothing  here  to 
invalidate  that  proof.  In  one  verse,  Christ  says,  rather  than 
having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire,  and  in  the  other,  rath- 
er than  having  two  hands,  to  be  cast  into  everlasiing  fire.  Mr.  B. 
here  admits  that  if  the  fire  of  gehenna  means  the  national  judg- 
ments, so  does  everlasting  fire;  and  he  finds  a  use  for  the  term 
everlasting  in  the  protracted  calamities  which  have  fallen  upon 
the  Jews.  But  how  could  that  kind  of  everlasting  fire,  affect  in- 
dividuals then  living?  What  if  these  calamities  have  been  con- 
tinued through  so  many  generations,  they  are  therefoie  no 
more  severe  on  that  account,  to  the  individuals  who  fell  with 
Jerusalem.  Their  hands  and  their  eyes  have  suffered  no  more 
from  the  fire  being  in  that  sense  everlasting.  But  this  point 
comes  up  again  under  another  text. 

The  contrast  between  entering  into  life,  and   going  into  ge- 


140  MEANING    01^    GEHENNA. 

hennay  proves  that  gehenna  is  that  which  stands  as  the  oppo- 
site of  heaven — It  is  better  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than 
having  two  hands  to  go  into  hell.  Do  you  say,  entering  into 
life,  means  only  coming  in  possession  ofthat  spiritual  life  which 
believers  have  in  this  world  ?  The  answer  is,  the  disciples  were 
supposed  already  to  have  entered  into  that  life  ;  and  they  could 
not  be  properly  exhorted  to  the  means  of  entering  into  it. 
Then  there  was  no  entering  into  life  reserved  for  them,  but 
entering  into  heaven.  And  then  it  is  not  only  called  everlast- 
ing fire,  and  put  in  contrast  with  entering  into  heaven  ;  but  as 
if  to  cut  off  all  possibility  of  understan  ling  it  of  anything  short 
of  hell,  the  e::piession  is  added,  where  their  worm  dieth  not, 
and  the  fire  is  not  quenched ;  which  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  the  soul  will  always  live,  to  endure  the  punishment,  and 
the  fire  will  not  be  quenched,  during  the  life  of  the  soul.  To 
the  phrase  unquenchable  fire  used  in  another  place,  the  Uni- 
versalists  object  that  it  means  only  that  which  burns  as  long  as 
the  fuel  lasts.  But  to  cut  off  that  pretence,  here  is  an  assur- 
ance that  it  will  last  forever. 

Matt.  13:  15.  Woe  unlo  you  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypo- 
crites ;  for  ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  prosolyte  and 
when  he  is  made,  ye  make  him  two  fold  more  the  child  of  hell 
than  yourselves.  Mr.  B.  says  nothing  on  this  passage  but  what 
is  absolutely  too  frivolous  to  notice.  On  the  supposition  that 
gehenna  means  hell,  the  phrase,  child  of  gehenna,  is  clear  and 
natural.  As  with  the  Hebrews,  child  of  death,  signified  one 
worthy  of  death,  or  children  of  wrath  signified  those  exposed 
to  wrath,  so  child  of  hell,  signified  one  exposed  to  hell,  or  de- 
serving of  it.  But  the  child  of  Jerusalem's  destruction  seems 
to  be  rather  an  awkward  and  unnatural  product.  And  by  what 
rule  of  language  would  he  be  understood  by  his  hearers  so  to 
mean,  they  having  no  anticipations  of  such  a  destruction.  If 
that  destruction  were  universally  expected,  and  in  every  one's 
mouth,  under  the  name  of  gehenna,  the  case  v/ould  be  different. 
But  the  event  could  not  pass  by  that  name,  nor  any  other  name 
specially  appropriated  to  it,  because  none  had  been  expecting 
it.    The  Old  Testament  prophets'  predictions  of  it  seem  not  to 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  141 

have  been  understood:  he  himself  had  predicted  it  only  in  the 
hearing  of  a  few,  and  never  in  plain  and  direct  terms,  till  after 
this  discourse  was  held.  It  is  preposterous  then  to  suppose, 
that  his  hearers  would  recognize  that  event,  by  that  name  in- 
troduced with  such  brevity  of  allusion.  If  gehenna  had  become 
such  a  current  name  for  Jerusalem's  expected  destruction,  it 
is  strange  that  there  are  no  instances  in  the  discourses  of 
Christ,  where  he  plainly  and  indisputably  uses  it  in  that  sense. 
If  that  were  the  fact,  it  might  be  expected  that  where  the  word 
is  used  so  often,  and  reported  in  different  forms  by  different 
Evangelists,  there  would  be  at  least  one  instance,  where  it 
would  be  so  eonfined  in  its  meaning,  to  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem, that  every  eye  must  so  apprehend  it.  We  have  in- 
stances Avhere  it  refers  to  a  place  of  the  destruction  of  the  soul, 
when  it  is  called  an  everlasting  fire,  but  not  an  intimation  that 
it  is  a  name  for  Jerusalem  about  to  be  destroyed. 

Matt.  23:  33.  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can 
ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell!  Mr.  Balfour  first  undertakes 
to  explain  away  the  force  of  the  Avord  damnation.  What  he 
says  on  this  subject,  will  find  a  sufficient  refutation  in  chap.  II. 
He  then  asks  us  to  go  back  to  three  sources  of  evidence  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  word  gehenna.  First,  the  original  meaning 
of  the  term.  This  he  asserts,  and  we  grant,  was  not  that  of  a 
place  of  punishment  in  a  future  state.  Neither  was  it  that  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  So  the  original  meaning  of  the 
word  favors  not  one  interpretation  more  than  the  other.  He 
invites  us,  secondly,  to  look  at  the  Old  Testament  usage  of  the 
word,  and  assures  us  that  it  is  never  used  there  in  the  sense  of 
a  place  of  future  punishment.  Very  true  ;  and  neither  is  it 
used  as  a  name  of  Jerusalem's  destruction.  He  thirdly  invites 
us  to  look  at  the  context — which  we  will  do.  The  evidence 
from  the  context  brought  to  prove  that  this  passage  refers  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  the  assertion  in  verse  36.  All  • 
these  things  shall  come  upon  this  generation.  It  is  pretended 
that  these  things  include  the  damnation  of  gehenna  above  spo- 
ken of.  This  then  is  the  question  to  be  settled.  We  will  give 
•the  whole  passage.  After  pronouncing  various  woes  upon  the 
12* 


142  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  bidding  them  fill  up  the  measure  of 
the  fathers,  he  adds.  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how 
can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell?  And  then  beginning  a 
new  paragraph,  he  says — Wherefore,  behold  I  send  unto  you 
prophets  and  wise  men,  and  scribes,  and  some  of  them  ye  shall 
kill,  and  crucify,  and,  some  of  them  ye  shall  scourge  in  your 
synagogues,  and  persecute  them  from  city  to  city ;  that  upon 
you  may  come  all  the  righteous  blood  that  has  been  shed  upon 
the  earth,  from  the  blood  of  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias, 
son  of  Barachias,  whom  ye  slew  between  the  temple  and  the 
altar.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  all  these  things  shall  come  upon 
this  generation.  The  reader  will  perceive  that  there  is  an  in- 
termediate topic  introduced  between  the  damnation  of  gehen- 
na,  and  the  phrase  "these  things,"  a  topic  connected  with  the 
foregoing  by  a  "wherefore,"  and  introduced  as  a  distinct  conse- 
quence from  that.  The  course  of  the  remarks  is  this,  Because 
ye  are  a  generation  of  vipers,  so  deserving  of  the  damnation  of 
hell,  and  determined  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  your  fathers,  I 
•will  give  you  further  opportunity  to  act  out  your  infernal  dispo- 
sitions, towards  the  prophets,  and  to  fill  up  the  measure  of 
your  iniquity,  and  so  prepare  the  way  to  bring  upon  you,  as  a 
nation,  all  the  blood  of  all  the  prophets,  shed  upon  the  earth. 
The  phrase  these  things,  p]a.in\y  has  its  antecedent  in  the  things 
specified  in  the  preceding  verse,  to  wit:  the  righteous  blood 
that  has  been 'shed,  the  blood  of  Abe],  &c.  The  word  "things" 
is  supplied  by  the  translators.  It  may  as  well  read  all  these 
[taut  a  referring  to  a  i  ?/i  a  repeated  in  the  verse  preceding) 
shall  come  upon  this  generation.  That  this  verse  is  only  a  sum- 
ming up  of  the  particulars  mentioned  in  the  preceding,  is  too 
clear  to  need  proof.  In  one  verse  it  is  said,  that  upon  you  may 
come  this  that  and  the  other,  and  here  it  is  said  all  these  shall 
come  upon  this  generation.  The  merest  school- boy  in  Greek, 
would  not  risk  his  credit,  in  placing  the  antecedent  to  Ihtse^ 
back  three  verses,  and  in  another  paragraph.  Even  Mr.  B. 
would  not  have  done  it,  had  he  not  been  overcome  by  a  strong 
temptation  to  violate  the  laws  of  grammar. 

But  should  we  admit  that "  these  things"  referred  to  the  dam- 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  143 

nation  of  hell,  and  nothing  else,  Mr.  B.'s  conclusion  would 
not  follow.  ^The  word  generation  (gene a)  does  not  necessa- 
rily nor  primarily  nor  commonly,  mean  the  men  of  a  certain 
age.  I  Nor  is  it  clear  that  it  has  this  meaning  in  the  passage 
before  us.  Its  first  meaning  given  in  the  lexicons  is,  "family, 
a  race,  a  lineage."  And  this  is  the  more  common  meaning 
when  used  by  Christ.  Our  translators  have  used  the  word 
generation,  in  twenty-eight  instances,  and  in  only  three  of 
these  does  the  context  require  it  to  be  understood  of  the  men 
of  the  age,  and  in  a  great  majority  the  sense  is  better  sustain- 
ed, if  we  understand  it  of  lineage  or  nation,  as  any  one  may  see 
who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine.  That  it  is  to  be  so  un- 
derstood in  this  passage,  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  the  sin 
which  Christ  charges  upon  that  generation  was  the  sin  of  a 
previous  age,  as  well  as  of  that,  that  he  makes  the  charge  of 
prophet-killing  to  sweep  through  all  ages,  and  charges  on  the 
men  whom  he  was  addressing^  the  killing  of  a  prophet  who  was 
killed  centuries  before  they  were  born — from  the  blood  of 
Abel  to  the  blood  of  Zacharias,  whom  ye  slew  ;  yet  who  had 
been  slain  at  least  four  hundred  and  fifty  years  before.  Now 
how  could  Christ  say  to  those  whom  he  was  addressing — ivJiom 
ye  sleiv,  if  he  were  not  addressing  them  as  of  the  same  family 
with  those  who  §lew  him.  If  the  charge  was  built  on  such  an 
idea,  and  he  was  holding  them  up  as  the  murderers  of  Zacha- 
rias, because  of  the  same  race  with  them,  how  can  the  word, 
generation,  be  understood  otherwise,  than  in  the  sense  of  a 
race.  This  mode  of  speaking  is  continued  through  the  chap- 
ter. O  Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets  and  stonest 
them  that  are  sent  unto  thee,  &c.  Behold  your  house  is  left 
unto  you  desolate.  For  I  say  unto  you  ye  shall  not  see  me 
henceforth  till  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  Here  he  tells  them  as  a  nation  that  they 
are  to  be  left  desolate,  until  they  as  a  nation  should  welcome 
him  as  the  Messiah.  So  as  in  the  previous  verse  he  addressed 
through  them,  many  ages  back,  here  he  speaks  of  what  is  to 
be  done  centuries  hence,  as  done  by  them  then  living.  There 
is  to  my  mind  strong  reason  for  believing  that  generation  is 


144  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

used  in  the  sense  of  a  race  or  family.  And  when  it  is  said, 
all  these  things  shall  come  upon  this  generation,  it  is  meant 
t!ie  guilt  that  stands  charged  against  this  nation  for  so  many 
prophets  killed,  and  the  guilt  yet  to  he  accumulated  in  the 
same  way,  will  bring  a  fearful  reckoning  upon  the  nation.  The 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  did  not  come  in  that  generation,  con- 
sidered in  the  sense  of  age,  or  term  of  thirty  years.  It  occur- 
red forty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  when  most  whom  he 
then  addressed  must  have  been  in  their  graves.  But  if  gener- 
ation does  not  mean  what  Mr.  B.  supposes,  the  main  hinge  of 
his  interpretation  has  gone.  I  have  dwelt  longer  on  this  point 
than  is  needful  for  the  conviction  of  most,  because  the  Univer- 
salists  place  so  much  reliance  here. 

Mark  9:  43.  And  if  thy  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off,  it  is  bet- 
ter for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than  having  two  hands 
to  go  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that  never  shall  be  quenched,  where 
their  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  x\nd  if  thy 
foot  offend  thee,  cut  it  off,  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  halt  into 
life,  than  having  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  hell,  into  the  fire  that 
never  shall  be  quenched,  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the 
fire  is  not  quenched.  And  if  thine  eye  offend  thee  pluck  it 
out,  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  with 
one  eye,  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire,  where 
their  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  This  is  es- 
sentially the  same  as  Matt.  18:  9.  introduced  again  because 
Mr.  B.  has  further  carried  out  his  remarks  in  relation  to  it. 
Here  he  admits  that  if  to  enter  into  life  means  to  enter  into 
heaven,  scehenna  means  the  world  of  Avoe.  But  he  asks,  do 
they  who  go  to  hell  carry  with  them  the  things  with  which 
others  parted  in  order  to  get  to  heaven  ?  and  says,  as  this  will 
not  be  pretended,  something  else  than  hell  is  meant.  But  this 
ivill  be  pretended.  Those  who  go  to  hell,  do  carry  with  them 
their  lusts  and  vicious  propensities  with  which  others  part,  in 
order  to  get  to  heaven— they  utterly  perish  in  their  own  cor- 
ruption. Mr.  B.  attempts  to  prove  that  the  phrase,  eternal  life, 
and  the  phrase,  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  here  mean  en- 
tering into  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  in  this  world.     His  proof 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  145 

is  good  so  far  as  to  show  that  the  phrase,  kingdom  of  God, 
sometimes  means  the  reign  of  Christ  at  his  resurrection,  but 
he  stops  short  of  proving  that  that  is  the  meaning  here, 
where  it  is  made  synonymous  with  eternal  life.  It  were  easy 
to  show  by  ample  quotations  that  kingdom  of  God  often  means 
1!saven.  But  I  shall  adduce  but  one,  and  that  one  whose  rel- 
evancy Mr.  B.  will  not  dispute,  because  it  relates  to  the  res- 
urrection. Now  this  I  say  brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood  can- 
not inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  neither  doth  corruption  inherit 
incorruption.  1  Cor.  15:  50.  But  if  the  kingdom  of  God  in  any 
case  means  heaven,  it  was  incumbent  on  Mr.  B.  to  show  why  it 
does  not  here,  especially  since  it  is  made  synonymous  with 
entering  into  life,  a  phrase  appropriated  to  express  the  enter- 
ing into  heaven,  and  never  used  to  express  the  escape  from 
Jerusalem's  Destruction. 

Another  mistake  into  which  Mr.  Balfour  has  fallen  Avith 
some  orthodox  writers  respects  the  phraseology  where  the 
worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  He  tells  us  this 
came  from  the  burning  of  perpetual  fires  in  the  valley  of 
Hinnom,  to  consume  the  offal  there  and  prevent  its  breeding 
worms,  and  in  the  next  paragraph,  he  tells  us  this  passage  he 
quoted  from  Isaiah.  That  this  phraseology  as  used  by  Isaiah 
did  not  originate  from  the  fires  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom  is  cer- 
tain, from  the  fact  that  the  scenes  in  question,  never  had  ex- 
istence in  the  days  of  Isaiah.  The  desecration  of  the  valley 
of  Hinnom  by  Josiah,  and  of  course  the  use  of  fires  there  for 
the  purpose  aforesaid,  did  not  take  place  till  more  than  sixty 
years  after  the  death  of  Isaiah.  Mr.  Balfour  assumes  that  the 
passage  as  used  by  Isaiah  does  not  refer  to  hell,  as  the  world 
of  woe,  and  from  that  assumption  infers  that  when  used  by 
Christ,  it  does  not.  Should  we  admit  what  is  assumed,  the  con- 
clusion would  not  follow.  But  we  do  not  admit  it.  He  ought 
to  have  known  that  the  leading  orthodox  writers  refer  the  pas- 
sage in  Isaiah  to  the  world  of  woe.  Bishop  Lowth,  whose 
acquaintance  with  this  prophecy  is  second  to  that  of  few,  says 
this  passage  refers  to  something  yet  future.     Scott  refers  it  to 


146  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

the  future  world.     And  yet  Mr.  B.  says  no  man  we  think,  will 
affirm  this,  and  builds  a  conclusion  on  that  assumption. 

James  3:  6.  And  the  tongue  is  a  fire,  a  world  of  iniquity. 
So  is  the  tongue  among  our  members  that  it  defileth  the  whole 
body,  and  setteth  on  fire  the  course  of  nature,  and  is  set  on 
fire  of  hell.  The  sum  of  Mr.  B's  evasion  here,  is,  that  it  is  as 
difficult  to  conceive  of  the  tongue  being  set  on  fire  of  hell,  as 
from  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  It  may  be  so  to  him.  Yet  he  has 
not  told  us  what  the  valley  of  Hinnom  has  to  do  in  originating 
the  mischiefs  of  the  tongue.  But  to  us  it  is  easy  enough  to 
conceive  what  hell  has  to  do  in  this  business.  And  besides, 
jNTr.  B.  here,  contrary  to  his  rule  in  other  cases  in  the  New 
Testament  and  without  giving  us  any  reason  therefor,  inter- 
prets gehenna  in  the  literal  sense.  Now  if  the  word  means 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  all  other  cases,  why  not  here  ? 
Surely  if  the  word  had  become  so  appropriated  to  that  idea  as 
his  other  interpretations  imply,  the  readers  of  James  must  have 
understood  him  in  that  sense.  But  so  far  as  it  regards  the 
sense  or  nonsense  imputed  to  the  passage,  there  is  little  choice 
between  the  two.  You  may  as  well  say  that  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  sets  on  fire  the  tongue  of  every  slanderer,  in  all 
parts  of  the  world,  as  that  the  valley  of  Hinnom  does  it.  There 
is  no  instance  of  the  use  of  the  word  that  brings  to  my  mind 
more  resistless  demonstration  that  the  word  had  become  appro- 
priated to  express  the  world  of  woe.  It  was  introduced  in 
such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it  had  a  fixed  meaning,  that  would 
be  recognised  by  all.  And  it  is  introduced  not  so  much  be- 
cause it  is  the  place  of  punishment,  as  because  it  is  the  source 
of  infernal  malicious  influence.  Mr.  Balfour's  quotations  from 
Schleusner,  making  gehenna  to  mean  "any  kind  of  punish- 
ment especially  a  shameful  kind  of  death,"  will  not  serve  him 
here.  Because  we  have  in  this  passage  no  occasion  for  a 
place  of  punishment,  except  so  far  as  that  is  the  habitation  of 
evil  spirits,  who  instigate  the  wickedness  of  the  tongue. 

Having  considered  the  passages  in  which  gehenna  is  used, 
we  will  now  notice  Mr.  B.'s  chapters  of  objections  to  its  being 
understood  in  the  sense  of  hell. 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  147 

Objection  1st.  "The  tenuis  not  used  in  the  Old  Testament 
to  designate  the  place  of  endless  punishment  to  the  wicked." 
Answer.  Neither  is  it  used  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  name 
for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

Obj.  2.  Those  who  believe  gehenna  designates  a  place  of 
endless  punishment  in  the  New  Testament,  entirely  overlook 
its  meaning  in  the  Old.  Ans.  Those  who  believe  gehenna  is  a 
name  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the  New  Testament 
entirely  overlook  its  meaning  in  the  Old,  for  it  is  always  there 
used  in  the  literal  sense.  In  one  case  the  prophet  is  command- 
ed to  go  forth  into  the  valley  of  Hinnom  o»  Tophet,  and  break 
a  bottle  in  the  sight  of  the  people,  and  tell  the  people  with 
reference  to  Jerusalem's  destruction  by  the  Chaldeans,  that 
Jerusalem  is  thus  to  be  broken,  and  to  be  made  desolate  as 
Tophet,  where  they  then  stood.  But  here  Tophet  is  used  in  the 
literal  sense  as  an  object  of  comparison,  and  is  no  more  the 
appropriated  name  for  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  than  the 
bottle  was  which  he  broke  before  him. 

Obj.  3.  "  Those  who  believe  gehenna  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment designates  a  place  of  endless  punishment,  give  it  this 
sense  on  mere  human  authority."  Ans.  And  those  who  give 
it  the  sense  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  do  it  on  no  author- 
ity human  or  divine.  Pray,  on  what  authority  should  they  fix 
the  meaning  of  words,  but  the  usage  of  those  who  spoke  and 
wrote  the  language?  Where  are  your  divinely  inspired  diction- 
aries ?  I  have  always  believed,  till  enlightened  by  Mr.  B's.  ex- 
uberant philology,  that  human  authority  was  sufficient  to  teach 
the  meaning  of  all  words. 

Obj.  4.  "The  word  gehenna  occurs  only  twelve  times  in  the 
New  Testament."  Ans.  But  suppose  it  had  occurred  twelve 
hundred  times,  would  it  be  any  more  or  less  likely  to  mean 
hell.  The  word.  Valley  of  Hinnom,  does  not  occur  as  many  as 
twelve  times  in  the  Old  Testament;  is  that  any  proof  that  it 
is  not  there  used  in  the  literal  sense  ? 

Obj.  5.  "The  word  gehenna  is  used  by  our  Lord  and  by 
James,  but  by  no  other  person  in  the  New  Testament,"  Ans. 
True,  but  what  then  ? 


148  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

Obj.  6.  "  But  another  striking-  fact  it,  that  all  that  is  said 
ahout  gehenna  in  the  New  Testament,  is  said  to  Jews  and 
Jews  only."  Ans.  Striking  indeed,  but  where  it  strikes  is  not 
so  evident.  Was  not  the  whole  of  Christ's  preaching  address- 
ed to  Jews,  and  through  them  to  the  world? 

Obj.  7.  "  Nearly  all  that  our  Lord  said  about  gehenna  was 
spoken  to  his  own  disciples."  Ans.  Most  tlati?  recorded  of 
his  sayings  on  other  subjects,  is  spoken  to  his  own  disci- 
ples,— but  spoken  to  them  to  be  published  to  the  world.  What 
was  spoken  to  them  in  the  ear,  they  Avere  commanded  to  pro- 
claim upon  the  house-tops. 

Obj.  8.  "  Wherever  gehenna  is  mentioned,  the  persons  ad- 
dressed are  supposed  to  be  perfectly  acquainted  with  its  mean- 
ing." Ans.  True — and  every  public  speaker  or  writer,  if  he 
has  common  sense,  will  use  Avords  which  his  hearers  under- 
stand. But  what  then  ^  Mr.  B.  goes  on  to  say,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  Jews  understood geAenna  as  a  place  of  endless 
misery,  I  have  a  right  to  ask  from  what  source  of  information 
did  they  learn  it  ?  He  then  informs  us  that  they  did  not  learn 
it  from  immediate  inspiration,  nor  from  the  preaching  of  John 
the  Baptist,  nor  from  the  instructions  or  explanations  of  the 
Saviour,  nor  from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  but  from  the 
assertions  of  fallible  uninspired  men.  Marvellous  philology!! 
Where  should  they  learn  the  meaning  of  a  word,  but  from  their 
o%n  mothers,  whence  all  children  learn  to  talk? — Yea  from 
their  own  mothers,  fallible  and  uninspired  ivomen.  If  he  had 
asked  how  that  word  came  to  be  used  in  that  sense,  the  an- 
swer would  have  been  different.  But  after  usage  had  given 
it  the  meaning  of  hell,  surely  men  needed  no  inspiration  to 
understand  a  word  according  to  its  current  use.  Whence  did 
Mr.  Balfour  learn  the  meaning  of  the  English,  words  which  he 
employs  in  his  writings, — not  from  immediate  inspiration,  not 
from  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  not  from  the  instruc- 
tions or  explanations  of  the  Saviour,  but  from  the  mouths  and 
writings  of  fallible  men.  One  oftwo  things  is  undeniably  true 
our  CcUthor  is  eitherhimself  ignorant  of  one  of  the  plainest  prin- 
ciples of  language,  or  else  he  expects  that  all  his  readers  will 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  149 

be  thus  ignorant,  and  is  capable  of  building  on  such  a  presump- 
tion. But  I  desist  from  the  notice  of  such  frivolous  arguments, 
and  pass  to  his  Section  IV,  in  hopes  to  find  something  deserv- 
ing of  attention. 

This   also  is   a  chapter  of  objections. 

Obj.  1.  "If  gehenna  means  a  place  of  endless  misery,  it  is  a 
fact  that  the  apostles  never  preached  it,  either  to  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles." Ans.  Preached  what  ?  That  they  preached  the  doctrine 
of  endless  misery,  we  have  already  shown,  page  44  and  in  oth- 
er places;  and  Ave  shall  bring  still  more  evidence  upon  that  point 
in  the  sequel.  But  that  they  used  in  their  epistolary  writings  the 
word  gehenna  ,  in  more  than  one  instance  is  not  pretended. — 
The  objection  assumes  that  we  know  every  word  that  the  apos- 
tles used  on  all  occasions  of  their  preaching.  Mr.  B.  asks,  can 
any  man  suppose  they  believed  this,  yet  in  the  course  of  thirty 
years'  preaching,  never  mentioned  it  to  their  hearers.  How 
does  he  know  they  never  did  ?  Has  he  a  full  length  report  of  all 
tlieir  sermons  preached  for  thirty  years?  Besides,  this  kind  of  ar- 
gument is  equally  good  to  prove  the  contrary.  Can  any  man 
suppose  that  the  apostles  believed  that  all  men  will  be  saved, 
yet  in  the  course  of  thirty  years'  preaching,  never  mentioned  it 
to  their  hearers  ?  Do  Universalist  preachers  now,  preach  thir- 
ty years  and  never  explicitly  state  this  article  of  their  creed  ? 
But  suppose  the  apostles  never  did  use  the  word  gehenna  in 
more  than  one  instance,  is  not  its  use  by  Christ  sufficient  ? 

Obj.  2.  "The  salvation  revealed  by  the  gospel  is  never  spo- 
ken of  as  a  salvation  from  hell,  or  endless  misery." — "In  all  the 
texts  where  he  (Christ)  speaks  of  hell,  he  was  not  preaching 
the  gospel,  but  addressing  the  Jews  about  temporal  calam- 
ities coming  on  them  as  a  people."  The  assertion  that  the 
salvation  of  the  gospel  is  not  a  salvation  from  hell,  is  no  more 
nor  less  than  assuming  the  main  point  in  dispute,  to  prove 
a  smaller  point — and  the  supposition  that  Christ  was  not 
preaching  the  gospel,  when  according  to  Mr.  B.  he  was  speak- 
ing of  temporal  calamities,  brings  us  to  the  conclusion  that  he 
preached  but  very  little  gospel,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel. 
It  seems  then  that  Christ  was  not  preaching  the  gospel  in  his 
13 


150  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

sermon  on  the  mount, — That  he  was  not  preaching  the  gospel 
when  he  told  his  disciples  to  proclaim  on  the  house-tops,  what  he 
was  speaking  in  the  ear,  and  to  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body, 
while  making  the  proclamation, — that  he  was  not  preaching  the 
gospel,  when  urging  his  hearers  to  sacrifice  a  right  eye  or  hand, 
in  his  service.     A  universalist  gospel  he  was  not  preaching. 

Obj.  3.  "Supposing  gehenna  is  a  place  of  endless  misery, 
who  can  vindicate  the  character  of  our  Lord  or  his  apostles  for 
faithfulness,  compassion  or  zeal  ?"  Ans.  If  gehenna  be  a  place 
of  endless  misery,  our  Lord  here  stands  accused  of  a  want  of 
faithfulness  ! !  If  gehenna  be  a  place  of  endless  misery,  this  ob- 
jection is  not  far  from  blasphemy !  Did  then  the  Redeemer  do 
too  little  for  the  salvation  of  men  ?  Follow  him  from  the  time 
when  he  first  disrobed  himself  of  the  glory  which  he  had  with 
his  Father  before  the  world  was,  down  through  all  his  debase- 
ment, labor,  strenuousness,  endurance,  conflict,  sacrifice,  death, 
until  he  reassumed  his  throne  of  glory,  and  tell  me  if  his 
compassion  and  zeal,  were  not  proportionate  to  the  undertak- 
ing of  a  salvation  from  hell.  Ah  yes,  and  if  all  this  was  under- 
gone for  no  higher  object  than  the  prevention  of  what  tempo- 
ral suflTerings  he  actually  prevented,  in  the  few  that  became  his 
foUoVers,  where  was  the  adequate  object  of  all  this  endur- 
ance ?  And  so  far  as  this  objection  touches  the  conduct  of  the 
apostles — what  could  men  do  more  they  did,  if  they  had  an  ac- 
tual hell  ever  blazing  before  their  eyes?  Knowing  the  terrors 
of  the  Lord  they  persuaded  men.  They  compassed  sea  and 
land,  at  peril  of  life,  penetrated  every  heathen  nation,  they  bra- 
ved the  thunders  of  imperial  Rome,  in  their  attempts  to  snatch 
men  as  brands  from  the  burning.  Who  could  be  in  labors 
more  abundant,  in  perils  more  multiform,  if  the  salvation  of  a 
whole  world  from  an  eternal  hell,  pressed  on  his  single  shoul- 
der ?  But  if  salvation  from  temporal  calamity  was  their  object, 
how  strangely  misdirected  and  abortive  were  their  labors ! 
For  the  converts  which  they  made  and  their  deliverance  from 
temporal  calamity,  they  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,  and  took 
joyfully  the  spoiling  of  their  goods,  thinking  that  they  had  in 
heaven  a  better  and  enduring  substance.      Their  profession 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  151 

above  all  things,  exposed  them  to  temporal  calamities,  instead 
of  screening  them  from  it.  In  short  the  apostles  did  just  what 
Mr.  B.  supposes  ministers  of  the  present  day  would  do,  if  they 
believed  in  the  exposure  of  the  heathen  world  to  hell. — "  They 
rushed  into  the  hottest  place  of  the  battle  and  suffered  every 
privation  in  the  conflict." 

Since  Mr.  B.  in  this  connexion,  plies  some  of  the  thread-bare 
sneers  against  the  missionary  enterprise,  I  must  here  remark 
that  the  apostles  were  in  the  completest  sense  of  the  word, 
missionaries.  They  consecrated  their  lives  to  the  conversion 
of  the  heathen.  Now  if  their  gospel  was  Universalism,  and^if 
the  Universalists  are  the  true  successors  of  the  apostles,  why 
do  we  not  now  hear  of  universalist  missions  to  the  heathen  ? 
If  the  universalist  gospel  be  the  same  which  Paul  believed 
and  preached,  why  does  it  not  produce  a  similar  spirit  in  its  be- 
lievers, and  similar  results  on  the  Avorld  ?  Why  does  it  not 
send  abroad  its  evangelists  to  every  heathen  nation  ?  The 
temporal  condition  of  the  heathen  is  no  better  now,  than  it  was 
in  the  days  of  Paul.  The  call  for  the  gospel  is  every  way  as 
great  as  it  was  then.  And  why  do  not  Universalists  copy  the 
example  of  Paul  and  become  missionaries  to  the  heathen.^  I 
ask  not,  why  they  do  not  contribute  to  sustain  orthodox  mis- 
sions, but  why  not  plant  those  of  their  own?  Why  profess  to 
hold  the  gospel  as  apostles  held  it,  and  to  be  their  true  and 
only  successors  in  the  world,  and  then  both  in  theory  and  prac- 
tice, denounce,  yea,  sneer  at  the  very  employment,  by  reason 
of  which  they  were  called  apostles  ?  Are  not  universalist  mis- 
sions to  the  heathen  in  the  nature  of  things  impossible?  And 
is  not  here  proof  enough  that  theirs  is  a  system  at  war  with  the 
gospel?  Suppose  the  universalist  congregations  were  called 
upon  to  aid  in  establishing  and  supporting  missions.  What 
effectual  motive  could  be  brought  to  bear  upon  them  ?  Tell 
them  of  the  immoralities  and  temporal  wretchedness  of  the 
heathen,  most  of  them  would  have  sense  enough  to  know  with- 
in themselves,  that  Universalism  would  not  greatly  tend  to  im- 
prove their  morals.  And  over  against  any  possible  improve- 
ment of  temporal  condition,   they  would  set  the  dangers  and 


152  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

sacrifices  to  be  encountered  in  relieving  them  by  the  tardy 
process  of  gospel  illumination.  But  suppose  a  Universalist  un- 
dertakes the  work  with  the  zeal  and  self-denial  of  a  Paul.  On 
his  first  entrance  upon  his  field  of  labor,  he  is  met  by  the  ques- 
tion— Why  are  you  so  much  in  earnest  and  enduring  so  much 
to  induce  us  to  embrace  your  religion  ?  By  your  own  show- 
ing we  are  safe  enough  as  to  the  future  world  without  it.  You 
answer — My  object  is  to  make  you  so  much  the  happier  in  this 
world.  It  is  replied — The  advantage  which  you  offer  us  then, 
is  the  advantage  of  enduring  persecutions.  On  this  hypothe- 
sis, the  early  christians  would  have  replied  to  Paul — If  all  the 
advantages  which  you  offer  us  are  included  in  what  christians 
are  here  seen  to  enjoy,  the  advantage  of  being  hunted  like 
wild  beasts,  persecuted,  afflicted,  tormented  as  they  are,  to 
use  your  own  phrase,  and  if  the  conduct  in  this  life  do  not 
aflfect  the  life  to  come,  we  wish  for  no  Christianity.  Such 
a  reply  would  have  been  enough  to  silence  every  attempt  to 
convert  the  world  from  paganism  to  Universalism.  And  so 
such  a  conversion  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things  possible. 
Shall  we  yield  to  the  pretence  that  Universalism  is  primitive 
Christianity  ?  the  religion  which  induced  the  apostles  to  spill 
their  blood  in  the  cause  of  mission,  while  Universalism  takes 
the  lead  in  enmity  to  the  work  of  missions  to  the  heathen  ? 

His  4th  objection,  that  though  the  Old  Testament  is  oflen 
quoted  in  the  New,  it  is  never  quoted  to  show  that  hell  is  a 
place  of  eternal  misery,  is  harmless  and  shall  not  be  harmed. 

Obj.  5.  "If  there  be  a  place  of  endless  misery,  another  re- 
markable fact  is,  that  the  Hebrew,  Greek  and  English,  origi- 
nally had  no  name  for  this  place."  Remarkable  fact  indeed  ! 
There  was  a  time  when  these  languages  had  no  name  for  any 
thing,  but  things  existed  then.  The  Hebrew  language  in  the 
same  sense  may  be  said  originally  to  have  had  no  name  for 
heaven.  Is  this  too,  a  remarkable  fact  to  prove  that  there  is  no 
place  of  happiness  beyond  the  grave  ?  Or  was  that  word  chan- 
ged from  its  original  meaning  by  divine  or  human  author- 
ity ? 

Obj,  G.  "  Another  fact  deserving  our  consideration  is,  that 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  153 

christians  when  they  speak  of  hell,  adopt  the  phraseology  used 
about  sheol  and  hades  rather  than  gehenna,  though  it  is  con- 
tended that  geheima  is  the  word  which  signifies  the  place  of 
endless  misery."  If  such  a  childish  objection  as  this  will  have 
the  impudence  to  show  itself,  it  shall  have  the  mortification  of 
answering  itself.  For  I  know  of  none  concerned  to  answer 
it. 

Obj.  7.  "  Another  fact  deserving  some  notice  is,  that  the  pun- 
ishment of  gehenna  is  never  once  spoken  of  as  a  place  of  punish- 
ment for  the  spirit  separate  from  the  body  in  an  intermediate 
state  nor  as  a  punishment  for  both  body  and  spirit  after  the  resur- 
rection." Ans.  It  is  spoken  of  as  a  place  of  everlasting  punish- 
ment ybr  men.  And  I  see  not  how  the  absence  of  these  par- 
ticulars about  body  or  spirit  affects  the  question. — Have  it  of 
the  spirit  or  body  or  botli,  it  is  a  place  of  a  fire  that  never  shall 
be  quenched. 

Obj.  8.  "Closely  connected  with  the  last  fact,  is  another, 
that  the  learned  men  seem  to  believe  in  two  places  of  future 
punishment,  and  the  common  people  only  in  one."  Suppose 
it  be  so.  This  does  not  prove  that  there  is  no  place  of  punish- 
ment. Here  is  another  pitiful  quibble,  unworthy  of  a  man  who 
pretends  to  reason. 

Obj.  9.  "  Another  fact  is,  we  read  of  the  sea,  death  and  ha- 
des delivering  up  the  dead,  which  are  in  them,  yet  we  never 
read  of  gehenna  delivering  up  anything,  dead  or  alive."  And 
there  is  a  good  reason  why  we  do  not.  Gehenna  is  a  place  of 
everlasting  punishment,  and  there  is  no  deliverance  from  it. 
Hades  as  the  place  of  the  dead  not  as  the  place  of  the  punish- 
ment, is  represented  as  yielding  up  the  dead  in  it.  Butg-e^en- 
na  never  being  used  in  the  general  sense  of  a  place  of  the 
dead,  there  is  no  occasion  for  speaking  of  delivering  up  its  in- 
mates. 

Obj.  10.  "  That  none  of  the  original  words  translated  everlast- 
ing in  the  common  version  are  connected  w'lih gehenna  or  hell." 
What  does  the  man  mean?  Is  not  in  Matt.  18  everlasting  fire 
used  interchangeably  for  hell  fire  or  gehenna  fire  ?  And  is  not 
this  a  connexion  of  gehenna  with  the  word  everlasting  ?  That 
13* 


154  MEANING    OF    GEHENNA. 

the  expression,  eternal  hell,  does  not  appear  in  the  Bible  is  a  fact 
and  for  a  good  reason  :  for  gehenna  was  a  nanne  for  a  punish- 
ment known  to  be  eternal,  and  the  addition  of  that  word  was 
superfluous.  Besides,  the  eternity  of  the  punishment  in  gehen- 
na is  sufficiently  asserted  in  other  connections,  and  the  fact 
that  that  word  is  not  used  in  that  connection  proves  nothing-. 

Obj.  11.  "  In  the  common  language  of  most  christians,  you 
find  heaven  as  the  place  of  blessedness  for  the  righteous,  spok- 
en of  in  contrast  with  gehenna  or  hell  as  the  place  of  endless 
misery  for  the  wicked."  Ans.  Now  if  most  christians  use  im- 
proper language  in  this  particular,  I  see  not  but  they  must  re- 
form their  vocabulary.  But  what  does  this  prove  as  to  the 
question  of  the  meaning  o^ gehenna  in  the  bible  ? 

Obj.  12.  "  It  is  common  with  orthodox  preachers  to  repre- 
sent hell  as  a  place  of  endless  torments  for  the  wicked,  and 
speak  of  persons  being  tormented  there  by  the  devil  and  his 
angels."  Indeed  !  it  is  common  to  speak  of  devils  and  wicked 
men  as  being  in  the  same  place  of  punishment  !     O  tempera! 

0  mores ! !  Orthodox  preachers  have  become  so  wicked 
as  to  copy  the  very  language  of  Jesus  Christ — Depart  ye 
cursed  into  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  an- 
gels. 

I  have  thus  quoted  seriatim  two  strings  of  Mr.  B.'s  objections, 

amounting  to  16  in  all,  not  because  there  was  one  of  them  which 

1  would  not  be  willing  to  have  stand  unanswered,  but  that  my 
readers  who  have  never  read  his  learned  works,  may  have  some 
idea  of  the  kind  of  argumentation,  by  which  he  makes  out  his 
results.  I  shall  make  no  reliance  on  the  arguments  drawn  from 
the  Targums,to  prove  that  in  the  days  of  Christ  the  Jews  used  ge- 
henna  in  the  sense  of  hell,  though  I  deem  it  of  itself  conclusive. 
Because  I  conceive  that  that  point  has  been  already  made  out 
by  examination  of  passages  from  the  New  Testament.  And  be- 
cause a  full  and  satisfactory  statement  of  that  argument,  would 
occupy  more  space  than  the  relative  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion would  justify.  His  section  devoted  to  answering  objec- 
tions I  shall  not  notice,  because  I  choose  to  have  the  framing 
of  my  own  objections  to  his  system,  in  preference  to  those 


MEANING    OF    GEHENNA.  155 

which  he  has  constructed,  for  the  ease  of  answering.  I  leave 
the  question  now  whether  gehenna  does  not  mean  a  place  of 
}3unishment  in  the  future  world  to  the  reader's  decision. 

The  idea  of  a  place  of  punishment  in  the  future  world  is  in- 
culcated in  the  New  Testament  in  passages  where  neither  of 
the  words  above  considered,  is  used.  Rev.  ly :  20.  And  the 
beast  was  taken,  and  with  him  the  false  prophet  that  wrought 
miracles  before  him — these  both  were  cast  into  a  lake  of  fire, 
burning  with  brimstone.  Rev.  20:  10.  And  the  devil  that  de- 
ceived them  was  cast  into  a  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  where 
the  beast  and  the  false  prophet  are,  and  shall  bo  tormented  day 
and  night  forever  and  ever.  And  1  saw  a  great  white  throne, 
and  him  that  sat  on  it  from  whose  face  the  earth  and  the  heav- 
ens fled  away.  And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great  stand  be- 
fore God,  and  the  books  were  opened,  and  another  book  was 
opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life,  and  the  dead  were  judged 
out  of  those  things  which  were  written  in  the  books  according 
to  their  works. — And  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in  the 
book  of  life,  was  cast  into  a  lake  of  fire.  Rev.  21:  8.  But  the 
fearful  and  unbelieving  and  the  abominable  and  murderers  and 
whoremongers  and  sorcerers  and  idolaters  and  all  liars  shall 
have  their  part  in  a  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone, 
which  is  the  second  death.  To  these  may  be  added  those  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  casting  into  a  furnace  of  fire,  where  shall 
be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth — into  outer  darkness  where 
shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  These  passages  need 
no  comment.  Let  the  reader  take  them  in  their  connection  and 
judge  for  himself,  whether  they  relate  to  scenes  before  or  af- 
ter death. 


CHAPTER    X. 


THE    EXISTENCE  AND    AGENCY    OF    EVIL    SPIRITS. 

The  bearings  of  this  question  upon  the  subject  of  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked  have  been  considered  by  Mr.  B.  of  suf- 
ficient importance  to  justify  the  labor  of  200  pages  to  disprove 
the  existence  of  the  devil.  The  relative  importance  of  the 
subject  would  not  sustain  me  in  going  fully  into  the  proof  of 
the  reality  and  agency  of  evil  spirits.  Nor  need  I  do  it.  It 
has  been  done  by  abler  hands.  Those  who  wish  to  read  a 
popular  yet  sufficiently  learned  argument  on  that  subject,  are 
referred  to  "  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing,  by  Canonicus."  My 
labor  in  this  chapter,  will  be  chiefly  employed  in  exposing 
the  fallacy  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  Balfour. 

Ltieed  not  trouble  the  reader  with  a  particular  notice  of  the 
first  section,  in  which  he  draws  a  caricature  of  the  common 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  satan,  with  a  design  to  set  them  forth 
in  an  odious  light.  In  his  second  section  he  employs  ten  pag- 
es to  prove  that  it  was  not  a  fallen  angel  that  tempted  Eve. 
He  makes  the  serpent  a  personification  oflvst  in  Eve.  He  asks, 
What  was  it  which  deceived  Eve  and  which  Moses  here  rep- 
resents by  the  subtilty  of  the  serpent,  and  answers,  it  was  lust 
or  desire  in  Eve.  The  error  of  this  interpretation  has  been 
happily  exposed  by  an  anonymous  writer  in  the  Christian  Mag- 
azine, whose  language  in  this  and  in  a  number  of  other  cases  in 
this  chapter,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  borrow,  though  in  some 
cases  in  an  abbreviated  form.  The  writer  above  named  car- 
ries out  Mr.  B.'s  interpretation  as  follows — "Now  Zusf  was 
more  subtle  than  any  beast  of  the  field,  which  the  Lord 
God  had  made.  And  he  (lust)  said  unto  the  woman,  yea,  hath 
God  said,  ye  shall  not  eat  of  every  tree  of  the  garden  ?    And 


THE  EXISTENCE  AND  157 

the  woman  said  unto  the  lust  or  desire,  we  may  eat  of  the  fruit 
of  the  trees  of  the  garden :  But  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  which 
is  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  God  hath  said,  ye  shall  not  eat  of 
it,  neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.  And  the  lust  or  de- 
sire said  unto  the  woman — Ye  shall  not  surely  die,  For  God 
doth  know,  that  in  the  day  ye  eat  thereof,  then  your  eyes  shall 
be  opened  and  ye  shall  be  as  gods  knowing  good  and  evil. 
And  when  the  woman  saw  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and 
that  it  was  pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired,  or 
lusted  for,  or  serpented,  to  make  one  wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit 
thereof  and  did  eat. — Verse  13.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  the 
woman,  Avhat  is  this  that  thou  hast  done  :  And  the  woman  said 
lust  or  desire  beguiled  me,  and  I  did  eat.  And  the  Lord  said 
unto  lust  or  desire,  because  thou  hast  done  this,  thou  art  cursed 
above  all  cattle,  and  above  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  upon 
thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of 
thy  life.  And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  (lust  or  desire) 
and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed,  and  it 
shall  bruise  thy  (lust  or  desire)  head,  and  thou  (lust  or  desire) 
shalt  bruise  his  bofil.  Unto  the  woman  he  said,  I  will  great- 
ly multiply  thy  sorrow,  and  thy  conception ;  in  sorrow  shalt  thou 
bring  forth  children,  and  thy  lust,  desire,  or  serpent,  shalt  be 
towards  thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee." 

In  his  next  section,  Mr.  Balfour  undertakes  to  examine  all 
the  passages  where  the  word  satan,  or  adversary  occurs,  in 
order  to  prove  that  it  means  only  adversary.  Most  of  this  of 
course  is  a  work  of  supererogation,  for  none  ever  pre- 
tended that  the  word  adversary  was  always  used  in  the 
sense  of  an  evil  spirit.  You  might  as  well  construct  a  chap- 
ter, to  prove  that  the  word  Messiah  never  means  Christ,  be- 
cause in  this  and  that  instance  it  means  simply  the  anointed, 
and  is  applied  to  priests  or  kings.  The  next  passage  in  which 
the  term  satan  occurs  as  a  proper  name  is  I.  Chron.  11:  1.  And 
satan  stood  up  against  Israel  and  provoked  David  to  number 
Israel.  On  this  passage,  Mr.  B.  comes  to  the  conclusion,  p. 
34,  that  the  term  Satan  may  mean  some  evil  desire  or  passion 
in  the  mind  of  David,  or  some  human  adversary.  Nor,  says  he, 


158  AGENCY  OF  EVIL    SPIRITS. 

would  it  be  very  strange,  that  the  anger  of  Jehovah  was  in  this 
passage  the  satan  referred  to.  Though  Mr.  B.  appears  at  loss 
to  determine  who  or  what  is  meant  by  satan  in  this  passage, 
yet  after  his  labored  criticism  we  may  doubtless  venture  to 
read  it  thus- -And  some  evil  desire  or  passion  in  his  own  mind 
or  some  human  adversary,  or  the  anger  of  Jehovah,  stood  up 
against  Israel,  and  provoked  David  to  number  Israel. 

The  next  remarkable  passage,  where  satan  is  introduced  as 
representing  a  real  person,  or  being,  occurs  in  the  first  and 
second  chapters  of  the  book  of  Job.  Here  Mr.  B.  gives  his 
own  repeated  assertions,  to  refute  the  heathenisli  notion  of  an 
evil  being  called  Ahruman,  and  which  he  is  pleased  to  call 
"  the  christians  devil."  He  is  under  the  necessity  however,  of 
supposing  that  the  term  satan  here,  must  allude  to  somethings 
and  chooses  therefore  that  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free- 
booters, should  receive  this  appellation.  In  order  to  obtain 
the  true  sense  of  the  passage  then,  we  may  read  it  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner:  "Now  there  was  a  day,  when  the  sons  of  God 
came  to  present  themselves  before  the  Lord,  and  the  Sabean 
and  Chaldean  free-bootera  came  also  among  them.  And  the 
Lord  said  unto  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-booters,  whence 
comest  thou  ?  Then  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-booters 
answered  the  Lord  and  said,  from  walking  to  and  fro  in  the 
earth,  and  up  and  down  in  it.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  the 
Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-booters.  Hast  thou  considered  my 
servant  Job  ?  That  there  is  none  like  him  in  all  the  earth,  a  per- 
fect and  upright  man,  and  one  that  feareth  God  and  escheweth 
evil  .^  Then  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-booters  answered 
the  Lord  and  said, — Doth  Job  fear  God  for  nought  ?  Hast  not 
thou  made  an  hedge  about  his  house,  and  about  all  that  he 
hath  on  every  side  ?  Thou  hast  blessed  the  work  of  his  hands, 
and  his  substance  is  increased  in  the  land.  But  put  forth  thine, 
hand  now  and  touch  all  that  he  hath  and  he  will  curse  thee  to 
thy  face.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean 
free-booters,  Behold  all  that  he  hath  is  in  thy  power,  only  upon 
himself  put  not  forth  thy  hand.  So  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean 
free-booters  went  forth  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,     Again 


THE  EXISTENCE  AND  159 

there  was  a  day,  when  the  sons  of  God  came  to  present  them- 
selves before  the  Lord,  and  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free- 
booters came  also  among  them,  to  present  himself  before  the 
Lord.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free- 
booters, from  whence  earnest  thou  ?  And  the  Sabean  and 
Chaldean  free-booters  answered  the  Lord  and  said,  from  going 
to  and  fro  in  the  earth,  and  walking  up  and  down  in  it.  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-booters, 
Hast  thou  considered  my  servant  Job,  that  there  is  none  like 
him  in  all  the  earth,  a  perfect  and  an  upright  man,  one  that 
feareth  God  and  escheweth  evil  ?  And  still  he  holdeth  fast  his 
integrity,  although  thou  movedest  me  against  him  to  destroy 
him  without  cause.  And  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-boot- 
ers answered  the  Lord  and  said,  skin  for  skin,  all  that  a  man 
hath  will  he  give  for  his  life.  But  put  forth  thine  hand  now 
and  touch  his  bone  and  his  flesh,  and  he  will  curse  thee  to  thy 
face.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free- 
booters, Behold  he  is  in  thy  hand,  but  save  his  life.  So  went 
the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-booters  forth  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord,  and  smote  Job  with  sore  boils  from  the  sole  of  his 
foot  unto  his  croivn." 

The  next  passsge  to  which  we  may  turn  our  attention  is 
Psalm  109:  4.  For  my  love  they  are  my  adversaries,  but  I  give 
myself  unto  prayer.  Now  as  the  original  of  the  term  adversa- 
ry, (though  here  in  the  plural)  is  the  same  as  that  which  in  the 
sixth  verse  is  translated,  or  as  Mr.  B.  says,  is  left  untranslated, 
sata7i,  Mr.  B.  concludes  that  they  must  both  mean  the  same 
thing.  Indeed  who  ever  will  take  the  trouble  to  consult  his 
"Inquiry,"  will  find  him  to  insist  that  the  terrns  satan  and  ad- 
versary are  synonymous.  He  asserts,  p.  62,  respecting  verse 
6th,  that  "in  the  Jewish  mode  of  parallelism,  a  wicked  man,  in 
the  first  part  of  the  verse,  is  the  same  as  satan  in  the  second." 
But  Mr.  B.  cannot  deny,  on  his  own  ground,  that  the  terms  he 
and  him  in  this  and  some  of  the  following  verses  refer  to  ad- 
versary or  adversaries  previously  mentioned.  Now,  if  adver- 
sary and  satan,  and  wicked  man,  are  synonymous,  we  may  safe- 
ly read  the  whole  in  the  following  manner.  "For  my  love  they 


160  AGENCY  OF    EVIL    SPIRITS. 

are  my  satans,  but  I  give  myself  unto  prayer.  And  satans  have 
rewarded  me  evil  for  good,  and  hatred  for  my  love.  Set  thou 
a  satan  over  satan,  and  let  satan  stand  at  satan's  right  hand  ; 
when  satan  shall  be  judged,  let  satan  be  condemned,  and  let 
satan's  prayer  become  sin.  Let  satan's  days  be  few,  and  let 
another  take  satan's  office.  Let  satan's  children  be  fatherless, 
and  let  satan's  wife  be  a  widow."  The  reader  may  follow  out 
the  passage  if  he  pleases  and  get  the  full  sense  of  it  according 
to  our  author. 

Mr.  B.  invokes  particular  attention  to  his  4th  Section  of  this 
Inquiry.  What  there  is  in  it  that  demands  that  attention,!  am 
unable  to  discover.  The  object  is  to  prove,  that  the  Jews  got 
their  notion  of  satan  from  the  heathen,  during  their  intercourse 
with  them  in  the  time  of  the  captivity.  I  presume  that  all 
readers  who  are  satisfied  by  such  proofs  as  Mr.  B.  has  exhib- 
ited, that  the  existence  of  the  devil  is  not  recognised  in  Scrip- 
ture previous  to  the  captivity,  except  as  he  dwelt  in  lust  or 
desire  or  in  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean  free-booters,  will  readi- 
ly enough  admit,  that  the  Jews  got  their  notion  of  him  from  the 
heathen.  But  those  who  are  convinced,  that  the  Scriptures 
taught  the  existence  of  evil  spirits  before  the  captivity,  will 
not  read  his  fourth  section  with  much  interest.  What  if  the 
heathen  did  have  such  and  such  notions  of  evil  spirits,  that  is 
no  proof  that  the  Jews  had  not  previously  notions  more  consist- 
ent and  true. 

When  Mr.  Balfour  comes  upon  an  examination  of  the  evi- 
dence in  the  New  Testament,  he  contrives  by  an  artifice  in 
which  he  is  well  practiced,  to  leave  out  of  the  examination  a 
large  number  of  passages  commonly  relied  on  for  proof  of  the 
existence  and  agency  of  evil  spirits.  This  he  does  by  consid- 
ering the  passages  in  which  satan  and  diahol  os  occur,  leaving 
out  those  in  which  d  aim  on  and  d  aim  onion  occur.  He  justi- 
fies the  rejection  of  these  passages  from  the  consi(leration,by  one 
or  two  sweeping  and  fiilse  assertions.  He  says,  "  it  is  well 
known,  that  the  words  daimon  and  d aimonion  have  no 
refence  to  that  being,  christians  call  the  devil,  but  to  demons 
or  dead  men  deified."     "  It  is  only  with  the  word  diab  olo s. 


AGENCY  OF  EVIL    SPIRITS.  161 

rendered  devil  we  are  concerned  in  this  inquiry."  He  then 
reters  us  to  Dr.  Campbell  for  proof  that  it  is  well  known  that 
demons  are  dead  men  deified.  And  in  the  next  chapter  he 
quotes  Dr.  Campbell  as  saying  that  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain 
the  precise  idea  of  these  words,  since  they  are  never  confound- 
ed with  diabolo  s.  So  that  by  his  own  showing  Dr.  Camp- 
bell is  far  from  layiug  it  down  as  a  well  known  truth,  that  de- 
mons are  dead  men  deified.  The  quotation  from  Dr.  Cam-p- 
bell  expresses  no  more,  than  what  the  Orthodox  have  generally 
believed,  that  while  both  the  words  demon  and  devil  mean  evil 
spirits  of  some  character,  they  are  not  strictly  speaking  synon- 
ymous— no  nearer  so  perhaps  than  the  devil  and  his  angels. 
But  such  false  dealing  as  this,  was  sufficient  for  the  purpose  of 
blinding  many  readers,  who  had  not  the  means,  and  many  more 
who  would  not  take  the  trouble,  to  detect  the  falsehood.  But 
as  an  honest  reasoner,  he  was  bound  to  state  what  ideas  the  be- 
lievers in  diabolical  agency  attached  to  the  word,  and  show 
their  fallacy  if  he  could;  instead  of  dismissing  them  in  the 
gross,  with  one  sweeping  assertion,  designed  to  convey  the 
idea  that  no  one  relied  upon  them  for  proof.  This  way  of  proof 
is  more  expeditious  than  convincing. 

The  meanings  of  the  words  daimon  and  d  aim  onion  as 
given  in  Wahl's  Lexicon,  are  as  follows — An  evil  angel  sub- 
ject to  the  dominion  of  satan — that  is  the  same  as  an  unclean 
spirit,  a  fallen  angel,  an  evil  spirit.  In  Robinson's  Calmet 
they  are  made  lo  mean,  good  and  bad  angels,  but  generally 
bad  angels.  And  it  is  there  further  stated,  that  the  Hebrews 
express  demon  by  serpent,  satan,  or  tempter,  sheddim  or  de- 
stroyers. Now  all  the  instances  in  Avhich  a  word  occurs  to 
which  standard  writers  give  such  a  meaning,  Mr.  Balfour  leaves 
out  of  what  professes  to  be  a  repetition  of  the  proofs  on  which 
the  Orthodox  have  relied.  By  such  a  method  of  argument,  of 
the  fairness  of  which  you  will  better  judge  when  I  rehearse 
some  of  the  passages  there  omitted,  he  disposes  of  scores  of 
passages  which  according  to  his  plan  of  argument,  would  oth- 
erwise need  consideration,  and  these  instances  contain  some 

14 


162  THE  EXISTENCE  AND 

of  the  strongest  proofs  relied  on  by  any  one,  to  prove  the  doc- 
trine in  question. 

Some  of  these  instances  I  will  now  adduce,  requesting  the 
reader  to  carry  along  with  him,  Mr.  B.'s  definition  of  dai^ 
m  0  71,  viz  :  dead  men  deified,  and  see  how  it  will  apply.  Matt. 
9:  32.  As  they  went  out  behold  they  brought  to  him  a  dumb 
man,  possessed  of  a  devil  (dead  man  deified.)  And  when  the 
devil  (dead  man  deified)  was  cast  out,  the  dumb  spake,  and  the 
multitudes  marvelled.  But  the  Pharisees  said,  he  casteth  out 
devils  (dead  men  deified)  by  the  prince  of  devils  (dead  men 
deified.)  Here  the  historian  tells  us,  not  only  that  the  man 
was  dumb  bat  that  he  was  possessed  of  a  devil,  and  that  the 
restoration  of  his  speech  was  the  result  of  the  devil's  being  cast 
out.  And  Mr.  Balfour  has  so  disposed  of  the  subject,  as  not 
to  have  told  us  the  reasons  why  we  should  not  believe  it. 
Again,  Luke  8:  26.^  And  when  they  went  forth  to  land,  there 
met  him  out  of  the  city,  a  certain  man  which  had  devils  of  a 
long  time,  and  wore  no  clothes,  neither  abode  in  any  house, 
but  in  the  tombs.  When  he  saw  Jesus  he  cried  out,  and  fell 
down  before  him,  and  with  a  loud  voice  said,  what  have  I  to 
do  with  thee,  Jesus  thou  Son  of  God  most  high  ?  I  beseech 
thee,  torment  me  not.  For  he  had  commanded  the  unclean 
spirit  to  come  out  of  the  man.  For  oftentimes  it  had  caught  him, 
and  he  was  kept  bound  with  chains,  and  in  fetters,  and  he  brake 
the  bands,  and  was  driven  of  the  devil  into  the  wilderness.  And 
Jesus  asked  him  saying,  what  is  thy  name  ?  and  he  said  legion, 
because  many  devils  were  entered  into  him.  And  they  be- 
sought him,  that  he  would  not  command  them  to  go  out  into 
the  deep.  And  there  was  there  an  herd  of  many  swine  feed- 
ing on  the  mountains,  and  they  besought  him  that  he  would 
.suffer  them  to  enter  into  them.  And  he  suftered  them.  Tlien 
went  the  devils  out  of  the  man,  and  entered  into  the  swine. 

These  will  serve  as  examples  of  passages,  where  evil  spir- 
its are  spoken  of  under  the  name  ofdaimonion  ox  d  aim  on 
and  which  are  omitted  by  Mr.  Balfour ;  because,  he  tells  us, 
that  it  is  well  known  that  these  words  have  no  reference  to 


AGENCY  OF    EVIL    SPIRITS.  163 

that  being,  christians  call  devil,  but  to  demons  or  dead  men 
deified.  Surely  if  this  fact  were  well  known,  Mr.  B.  should 
liave  exhibited  some  of  the  grounds  of  that  knowledge.  Be- 
cause with  the  books  before  him,  that  he  occasionally  quotes, 
it  must  be  well  known  to  him,  that  his  opponents  have  not  at- 
tained to  that  knowledge,  and  will  require  the  proof.  And  it 
is  much  to  be  regretted,  that  he  has  not  tried  the  force  of  his 
methods  of  interpretation,  upon  these  passages — since  their 
testimony  is  so  full  and  explicit,  that  we  are  at  a  loss  to  con- 
ceive how  a  plausible  evasion  could  be  made  out. 

One  fact  which  should  convince  Mr.  B.  of  the  disingenuous- 
ness  and  insufficiency  of  his  method  of  disposing  of  these  pas- 
sages, is,  that  in  some  instances  the  word  demon  is  made  to 
mean  essentially  the  same  as  satan  or  beelzebub.  In  Matt. 
12:  22,  we  have  an  account  of  Jesus  casting  out  devils  (de- 
mons) and  the  pharisees  attributing  it  to  beelzebub  and  of  Je- 
sus replying — If  satan  cast  out  satan  he  is  divided  against  him- 
self, and  how  can  his  kingdom  stand?  And  if  I  by  beelzebub 
cast  out  devils,  how  do  your  children  cast  them  out?  Here 
demon,  satan  and  beelzebub  are  used  as  in  such  a  sense  sy- 
nonymous, that  when  demons  are  cast  out,  satan  is  said  to  be 
cast  out,  in  such  a  sense  that  the  casting  out  of  demons  is  at 
least  the  casting  out  of  satan's  angels.  Then  in  Acts  10:  38. 
Peter  in  allusion  to  Christ's  practice  of  healing  demoniacs,  says 
— who  went  about  doing  good,  healing  all  that  were  oppressed 
with  the  devil,  {diaholos) — as  if  those  possessed  of  demons, 
were  oppressed  with  the  devil,  as  if  the  influence  of  demons 
and  the  influence  of  the  devil  were  the  same  influence. 

Now  with  regard  to  the  question,  whether  evil  spirits 
were  actually  present,  in  those  said  to  be  possessed  with  the 
devil,  I  have  a  few  considerations  to  advance.  And  as  Mr. 
B.  has  passed  this  subject  in  silence,  I  am  under  the  neces- 
sity of  conjecturing  what  objections  he  would  advance  to  the 
doctrine  of  real  possessions.  This  necessity  I  regret,  inas- 
much as  our  opponents  are  supposed  to  be  the  best  able  to 
frame  their  own  objections.  Though  he  has  asserted,  that  it 
is  well  known  that  demons  are  dead  men,  and  hinted  at  nooth- 


164  THE  EXISTENCE  AND 

er  meaning  as  possible,  I  will  not  hold  him  to  the  necessity, 
and  absurdity  of  carrying-  out  this  meaning,  through  all  the  pas- 
sages where  it  occurs.  I  will  rather  suppose  this  is  a  matter, 
which  he  did  not  go  into.  The  folly  of  such  an  interpretation, 
would  be  seen  at  once,  if  you  were  to  substitute  dead  men  de- 
ified, in  all  cases  where  the  word  demon  occurs,  in  the  passage 
respecting  the  Gadarene  demoniac.  But  I  will  take  the  most 
plausible  evasion,  that  I  have  ever  seen  advanced.  And  that 
is,  that  these  persons  were  not  really  possessed  of  devils,  but 
only  supposed  to  be  so  by  a  superstitious  people.  And  that 
Christ  and  the  sacred  historians  employed  language,  in  com- 
pliance with  popular  usage  and  belief,  without  countenancing 
or  discountenancing  that  belief.  This  is  a  notion  into  v/hich 
writers  of  much  respectability  for  talents  have  fallen.  But  the 
talents  they  have  employed  in  its  defence,  have  served  to  show 
out  more  completely  its  unsoundness.  They  will  have  it,~that 
Christ  spoke  of  men  being  possessed  of  devils,  as  we  use  the 
word  lunatic,  which  in  its  etymology  means  moon-struck,  for 
one  who  is  mentally  deranged.  And  that  evil  spirits  had  no 
more  agency  in  the  diseases  which  Christ  cured  under  the 
name  of  demoniacal  possessions,  than  the  moon  has  in  cases  of 
lunacy  which  now  occur. 

But  one  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  theory  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  demoniacs,  at  once,  and  in  som.e  cases  without  any 
previous  knowledge  of  Christ,  address  him  as  the  Messiah. 
This  did  the  two  which  met  Christ  in  the  country  of  the  Ger- 
gesenes.  They  were  strangers  to  him,  and  his  fame,  exceeding 
fierce  so  that  no  man  could  even  pass  them  safely,  and  upon 
the  first  meeting  of  Christ,  they  cried  out — What  have  we  to 
do  with  thee,  thou  Son  of  God  ?  Here  must  have  been  some 
supernatural  agency,  in  imparting  to  these  delirious  men  if 
they  were  only  delirious,  the  knowledge  which  they  had  of 
Christ.  And  it  is  no  easier  to  suppose  they  had  the  spirit  of 
prophecy,  tlian  that  they  had  the  spirit  of  the  devil.  One  or 
the  other  it  must  have  been.  A  similar  instance  is  recorded 
in  Mark  ]:  23.  And  there  was  in  their  synagogue  a  man  with 
an  unclean  spirit ;    and  he  ciied    out,     let  us  alone  ;    what 


AGENCY    OF    EVIL    SPIRITS.  165 

have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  art  thou 
come  to  destroy  us  ?  I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holj-  One 
of  God.  Now  if  this  man  were  a  mere  lunatic,  whence  had  he 
this  knowledge  ?  If  he  were  deranged,  his  knowledge  did  not 
come  by  natural  process,  by  reasoning  from  the  evidence  then 
before  the  people,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God. 

The  sickness  of  the  blind  and  deaf  men,  mentioned  in  Matt. 
12:  22,  is  attributed  to  satan  by  Christ  himself.      He  told  his 
opposers,  that  if  he  cast  out  devils  in  that  case  by  Beelzebub, 
then  we  have  the  absurdity  of  satan  casting  out  satan,  which 
is  as  much  as  to  say,  that  satan  was  cast  out  v/hen  the  demon- 
ized  man  was  healed.     Nor  can  it  with  truth  be  said,  as  it  has 
been  sometimes  suggested,  that  this  was  a  mere  argumentiun 
ad  honiinem,  reasoning  on  the  ground  of  his  opponents,  with- 
out admitting  it.     For  it  is  not  suggested  in  the  objection  of 
the  Pharisees  that  the  beings  that  were  cast  out  were  satan. 
But  Christ  goes  beyond  their  suggestion,  and  says  if  satan 
cast  out  sataji.     It  is  Christ  and  not  the  Pharisees  that  makes 
the  casting  out  of  demons,  the  casting  out  of  satan.     And  of 
the  woman  who  had  been  sick  eighteen  years,  he  said,  satan 
bound  her.     Now  suppose  that  when  Christ  cast  out  devils, 
and  when  he  addressed  the  demons  themselves,  and  command- 
ded  them  to  depart,  he  at  the  same  time  knew,  that  the  disease 
was  entirely  natural,  and  that  devils  had  nothing  to  do  with  it: 
there  was  not  the  mere  use  of  a  customary  expression,  which 
use  had  sanctioned  :    there  was  a  direct  conlirmation  of  an 
erroneous  opinion.      And  the  opinion,  if  it  was  an  error,  was 
according  to  Mr.  B.  one  of  great  magnitude,  so  great  as  to  re- 
quire a  whole  chapter  of  Mr.  B.  to  display  all  the  evils  there- 
of.    But  if  this  belief  be  an  error,  and  one  so  mischievous,  is  it 
not  surprising  that  among  ail  that  is  said  in  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject at  least  apparently  giving  countenance,  not  one  clause  or 
word  is  any  where  thrown  in  to  intimate  that  there  was  no  in- 
tention to  give  countenance,  to  the  belief  in  question. 

Recur  now  to  the  passage  already  quoted  from  Luke,  de- 
scribing the  demoniac  in  the  country  of  Gadarenes.  Here  the 
demon  is  represented  as  speaking  repeatedlv,  and  offering  a 

14* 


166 


THE    EXISTENCE    AND 


request !  If  the  demoniac  w^as  under  the  influence  of  a  mere 
natural  distemper,  what  was  it  that  asked  permission  to  enter 
the  swine  ?  The  distemper  ?  The  supposition  is  absurdity. 
The  man  himself  fancying  that  the  spirit  spoke  through  him? 
Then  why  did  Christ  who  came  to  establish  truth  make  such 
an  answer  as  would  go  to  confirm  the  spectators  in  a  serious 
error?  Then  went  the  demons  out  of  the  man,  and  entered  in- 
to the  swine.  Who  or  what  went  out  of  the  man  into  the 
swine  ?  The  man  himself?  Did  he  go  out  of  the  man  ?  Was 
it  the  distemper  ?  That  did  not  ask  liberty  to  go.  Turn  which 
way  you  will,  you  cannot  evade  the  necessity  of  understand- 
ing it  of  real  evil  spirits.  • 

Again,  when  Jesus  had  rebuked  the  evil  spirit  who  had  utter- 
ed his  name,  it  is  said.  He  came  out  of  him,  and  hurt  him  not. 
And  why  does  he  say  it  hurt  him  not,  if  nothing  is  meant  but 
a  natural  disease  ?  Is  it  wont  to  hurt  a  man  to  be  cured  of  a 
natural  disease  ?  Would  a  writer  having  the  spirit  of  inspira- 
tion or  the  spirit  of  common  sense,  think  it  worth  his  while  to 
inform  us,  that  such  a  man  was  not  hurt  by  being  set  clear  of 
his  disease  ?  But  if  the  writer  understood  the  matter  as  of  the 
ejection  of  a  devil,  that  in  other  cases  is  said  to  have  cried  ou 
and  rent  the  patient  sorely  on  coming  out,  it  would  be  natu- 
ral for  him  to  inform  us  of  this  circumstance.  Take  now  this 
passage  just  alluded  to — The  spirit  cried  and  rent  him  sore, 
and  came  out  of  him.  Now  what  cried?  The  disorder?  Then 
the  disorder,  to  wit  deafness  and  dumbness,  a  disorder  by  the 
way  not  given  to  crying,  cried  out  and  rent  the  man,  and  took 
away  his  strength,  and  left  him  as  dead.  Was  it  the  man  him- 
self that  cried  ?  Then  the  man  cried,  and  rent  himself,  and — 
came  out  of  himself. 

And  if  cases  of  demoniacal  possessions  were  only  natural 
diseases,  what  will  you  ^o  with  those  instances  where  distinc- 
tions are  made,  as  in  this? — And  he  ordained  twelve,  that 
they  should  be  with  him,  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to 
preach  and  to  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses  a7id  to  cast  out 
devils.  If  possessions  of  the  devil  were  only  sicknesses,  why  is 
the  addition  thus  made,  after  the  whole  story  is  told  ?     Say  if 


AGEN'CY    OF  EVIL   SPIRITS.  IGT 

you  please,  the  latter  clause  is  meant  for  a  particular  kind  of 
disease.  Then  it  would  be  about  equivalent  to  this — to  cure 
sicknesses,  and  to  cure  fevers.  That  is  by  no  means  a  natural 
mode  of  expression. 

This  kind  of  proof  might  be  much  more  extended,  but  it  is 
needless.  I  consider  myself  now  warranted  in  taking  it  as  an 
incontrovertible  fact,  that  there  were  cases  in  the  time  of 
Christ,  wherein  persons  were  really  afflicted  by  the  agency  of 
evil  spirits.  I  do  not  consider  it  essential  to  maintain  that  the 
Jews  never  ascribed  to  their  influence,  diseases  which  were  in 
fact  merely  natural.  While  they  saw  many  cases  of  real  and 
indisputable  possession  of  the  devil,  they  might  suppose  these 
cases  to  be  much  more  numerous  than  they  were,  as  men  now 
attribute  many  temptations  to  the  devil,  which  have  their  ori- 
gin in  their  own  lusts.  It  being  once  proved  that  there  were 
cases  of  demoniacal  possession,  that  proof  is  not  invalidated, 
should  it  be  shown  that  some  of  the  diseases  attributed  by  the 
people  to  demons,  were  natural  distempers.  Because  Christ 
would  not  be  interested  to  correct  their  mistake  in  individual 
cases,  while  their  belief  as  to  the  general  fact  of  such  de- 
moniacal agency,  was  well  founded.  If  it  be  true  that  persons 
were  ever  afflicted  in  the  manner  described  in  the  NewTosta- 
ment,if  descriptions  there  given  of  ejecting  denions,are  descrip- 
tions of  realities,  the  Avhole  of  Mr.  B.'s  scheme  is  upset  by  a 
class  of  proofs,  which  he  has  seen  fit  not  to  notice.  But  surely 
it  is  not  competent  for  Mr.  Balfour  to  assert,  without  any  ex- 
amination, that  in  no  instance  we  are  authorized  to  believe 
that  men  are  possessed  of  the  devil.  lie  knows,  if  his  reading 
has  been  such  as  at  all  to  qualify  him  to  write  on  this  subject, 
that  his  opponents  generally  insist  as  much  on  the  agency  of 
evil  spirits  in  the  case  of  demoniacs,  as  in  any  other  case. 
And  as  an  honest  reasoner,  he  should  have  met  them  on  that 
ground. 

I  shall  now  examine  some  of  the  passages  on  which  he  has 
commented  in  order  to  divest  them  of  the  doctrine  of  the  real- 
ity of  evil  spirits.  The  first  is  that  in  relation  to  the  tempta- 
tion of  Christ.     The  objections  which  he  quotes  from  Farmer, 


16S  THE    EXISTENCE    AND 

I  take  to  be  correctly  quoted,  but  as  they  are  built  on  the  ra- 
tionalist assumption,  that  reason  should  sit  in  judgment  on 
what  the  Bible  ought  to  teach,  and  is  at  liberty  to  reject  this 
or  that,  as  not  taught,  when  the  plainest  language  asserts  it,  if 
It  do  not  consist  with  our  antecedent  opinions  of  what  is  rea- 
sonable, instead  of  simply  inquiring  by  the  uses  of  the  general 
rules  of  language,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  writer,  I  do  not 
consider  myself  called  upon  particularly  to  notice  them.  The 
admission  of  such  a  principle  is  a  departure  from  the  legiti- 
mate principles  of  interpretation,  and  from  such  principles  as 
Mr.  B.  himself  has  tacitly  acknowledged  through  the  main 
part  of  the  discussion.  The  question  is  not  whether  it  "  com- 
ports with  the  dignity  and  sanctity  of  the  Redeemer  to  be  seen 
in  conference  with  satan,"  nor  any  of  a  thousand  such  questions 
as  might  be  started,  but  what  saith  the  sacred  record  ?  If  that 
be  intelligible  and  true,  the  Redeemer  was  found,  Avhile  in  his 
voluntary  humiliation,  in  m.any  positions  which  to  Mr.  Farmer's 
mind  might  not  seem  to  comport  with  his  dignity  and  sanctity. 
Ail  the  objections  here  stated  are  therefore  irrelevant  to  the 
question,  what  does  this  passage  inculcate  respecting  evil 
spirits  ? 

Mt.  B.  makes  the  tempter  here  a  personification  of  three 
distinct  tilings.  In  the  first  part  of  the  story,  he  makes  the 
devil  to  mean  hunger  ;  in  the  second,  flesh  and  blood  ;  and  in 
the  third,  worldly  grandeur.  The  first  difficulty  I  have  to 
suggest  to  this  way  of  interpreting  the  passage  is,  that  the  oc- 
currence of  personification  in  such  a  narrative,  and  in  such  a 
connexion,is  an  absurdity  without  a  parallel.  Personification  the 
most  perspicuous  of  all  figures,  never  occurs  in  any  writings, 
sacred  or  profane,  where  it  is  possible  to  doubt  whether  the 
sense  be  figurative.  Mr.  B.  is  challenged  to  find  another  in- 
stance in  the  whole  compass  of  written  composition,  where 
personification  is  introduced,  in  a  manner  so  obscure,  as  to  be 
mistaken  for  the  literal  sense.  If  this  bean  instance  of  per- 
sonification it  is  marvellous  that  the  study  of  the  Bible  for 
eifrhtcen  centuries  by  many  of  the  most  accomplished  scholars, 
has  never  until  now  revealed  tlie  fact.     And  then  what  in- 


AGENCY    OF    EVIL    SPIRITS.  1G9 

creases  the  difRculty  is,  that  this  personification  is  not  true  to 
itself,  but  that  it  assumes  any  and  every  shape,  to  elude  de- 
tection or  to  suit  the  convenience  of  the  interpreter.  In  the 
case  before  us  it  becomes  three  distinct  things  in  one  story. 
We  have  on  the  principle  supposed,  a  devil  so  accommodating, 
as  to  become  now  lust  or  desire,  now  the  Sabean  and  Chaldean 
free-booters,  now  hunger,  now  flesh  and  blood,  now  the  glory 
and  grandeur  of  the  world,  now  the  persecuting  Jews,  now 
the  rigidity  of  the  back  bone,  now  dead  men  deified,  and  any 
thing  that  the  exigences  of  a  desperate  cause  demand.  To 
be  convinced  that  this  is  an  unwarrantable  use  of  language, 
take  any  other  word  frequently  personified,  and  see  if  it  is  ca- 
pable of  thus  expressing  difi'erent  things  ?  Take  for  instance 
Death.  This  has  sometimes  the  properties  of  a  living  person 
ascribed  to  it,  and  is  sometimes  addressed  as  a  living  being,  as 
— O  Death  where  is  thy  sting?  Destruction  and  Death  say 
we  have  heard  the  fame  thereof  with  our  ears.  Death  is  rep- 
resented as  riding  upon  a  pale  horse.  Here  are  three  instan- 
ces, very  diverse  in  which  the  same  object  is  personified,  and 
you  see  that  the  object  still  remains  die  same  in  all. 

But  let  us  see  how  these  three  devils  figure  in  the  passage 
before  us.  It  should  read  to  give  us  the  sense  (?) — Then  Je- 
sus was  led  up  by  the  sj>irit  into  the  wilderness,  to  be  tempted 
of  three  devils,  hunger,  flesh  and  blood,  and  the  grandeur  of 
the  world,  and  when  he  had  fasted  forty  days  he  was  an  hun- 
gered. And  when  hunger  came  to  him  hunger  said  unto  him,  if 
thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  made 
bread.  Jesus  said  unto  hunger,  it  is  written  man  shall  not  live 
by  bread  alone.  (Exit  hunger.)  Then  flesh  and  blood  taketh 
him  up  into  the  holy  city,  and  setteth  him  on  a  pinnacle  of  the 
temple,  and  saith  unto  him,  if  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  cast 
thyself  down,  &c.  and  Jesus  said  unto  him,  it  is  written  again 
(why  again  if  he  is  addressing  now  another  person)  thou  shalt 
not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God.  (Exit  flesh  and  blood.)  And 
worldly  grandeur  taketh  him  up  into  an  exceeding  high  moun- 
tain, and  showeth  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  the 
glory  of  them,  (worldly  grandeur  must  haye  had  powerful  op- 


1  70  THE  EXISTENCE  AND 

tical  instruments)  and  saith  all  these  things  will  I  give  thee  if 
thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me.  Then  saith  Jesus  unto 
him,  get  thee  hence,  worldly  grandeur.  For  it  is  written 
thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve.  Then  worldly  grandeur  left  him,  and  the  angels  came 
and  ministered  unto  him.  And  as  angels  must  be  the  opposite 
of  devils,  and  as  Mr.  B.  seems  not  to  believe  in  any  spiritual 
beings,  by  that  name,  I  suppose  these  angels  were  the  oppo- 
sites  of  the  three  devils  above  named  whose  exploits  we  have 
considered, — that  is,  fulness  of  bread,  spirituality  of  mind,  and 
worldly  poverty  and  degradation.  These  angels  came  and 
ministered  to  him.  What  beautiful  and  lofty  sentiments  are 
here  set  forth,  and  with  what  finished  drapery  are  they  cloth- 
ed !  Here  we  have  flesh  and  blood  pleading  to  be  cast  down 
from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  as  though  flesh  and  blood  de- 
lighted in  such  exercises  and  could  artfully  misquote  the  scrip- 
tures, to  procure  the  desired  privilege. 

Luke  10:  18.  And  he  said  unto  them  I  beheld  satan  as 
lightning  fall  from  heaven.  Here  Mr.  B.  gives  us  to  under- 
stand that  satan  must  be  used  in  a  tropical  sense,  for  human 
adversaries  of  the  gospel,  because,  serpents  and  scorpions 
in  the  context  are  used  figuratively.  I  will  quote  it  in  its  con- 
nexion. And  the  seventy  returned  again  with  joy,  saying? 
oven  the  devils  are  subject  unto  us  through  thy  name.  And 
he  said  unto  them,  I  beheld  satan  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven  j 
Behold  I  give  you  power  to  tread  on  serpents,  and  scorpions, 
and  over  all  the  pov/er  of  the  enemy,  and  nothing  shall  by  any 
means  hurt  you.  Now  suppose  serpents  and  scorpions,  were 
used  figuratively,  there  is  nothing  which  would  imply  that  sa- 
tan was.  But  they  are  not  used  figuratively,  the  passage  is 
most  plainly  parallel  to  that  in  Mark  where  similar  privileges 
are  conferred  in  these  words, — In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out 
devils,  and  they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues,  they  shall  take 
up  serpents,  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not 
luirt  them.  Now  this  had  a  literal  fulfillment.  They  did 
speak  with  neAv  tongues,  as  on  the  day  of  pentecost ;  they  did 
take  up  serpents  unhurt,  as  in  the  Island  of  Melita.     So  Mr. 


AGENCY    OF    EVIL  SPIRITS.  171 

B.'s  attempt  to  prove  a  figurative  sense  fails  in  both  premises. 
But  this  reasoning  is  followed  up  by  such  a  question  as  this. 
"I  would  ask  how  many  fallings  from  heaven  satan  has  had  ; 
for  he  fell  from  heaven  before  he  tempted  eve,  and  fell  again 
it  seems  while  the  seventy  disciples  were  on  their  tour  of 
preaching.  But  how  did  he  get  to  heaven  to  make  that  second 
fall,  and  while  there,  was  he  walking  over  the  earth  seeking 
whom  he  may  devour  ,^"  Mr.  B.  has  here  amused  himself  with 
one  of  his  own  mistakes.  The  passage  does  not  say  that  he 
fell  while  they  were  on  their  tour  of  preaching,  but  evidently 
refers  to  his  original  apostacy  and  fall.  As  Mr.  B.  seems  here 
to  assume  with  so  much  assurance  that  his  opponents  must 
receive  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  which  he  imputes  to 
them.  I  will  quote  from  so  common  a  book  as  Scott's  Family 
Bible.  A  book  that  probably  coincides  with,  and  influences 
the  opinions  of  the  orthodox  more  extensively  than  any  other 
uninspired  book:  "When  therefore  they  returned  to  him, 
(doubtless  at  the  time  and  place  appointed)  they  told  him  with 
joyful  surprise  that  not  only  diseases,  but  even  devils  had  been 
subject  to  them  through  his  name.  Our  Lord,  however,  point- 
ed out  far  more  valuable  blessings  to  be  conferred  on  his  disci- 
ples. He  observed  he  beheld  satan  fall  as  lightning  from 
heaven.  Satan  had  thus  instantaneously  been  cast  down  from 
heaven,  on  his  original  apostacy.  And  his  usurped  dominion 
on  earth,  with  the  idolatrous  worship  which  he  had  devised  to 
establish,  was  about  to  be  thrown  down  in  the  same  sudden 
and  surprising  manner,  by  means  of  the  gospel  preached  to 
the  nations,  in  which  the  seventy  disciples  should  in  a  short 
time  be  employed.  So  that  their  success  in  casting  out  devils, 
was  only  an  emblem  of  a  far  more  decisive  victory,  which  they 
and  their  coadjutors  and  successors  would  by  his  power  ob- 
tain over  satan,  the  ruler  of  the  whole  multitude  of  evil  spir- 
its." Does  this  make  it  appear  that  satan  had  had  so  many 
falls  from  heaven  ? 

And  now  Mr.  B.  will  you  be  so  good  as  to  tell,  when  it  was 
that  the  adversaries  of  the  gospel  fell  from  the  political  heav- 
ens, of  which  you  speak,  before  the  apostles, — when  it  was  that 


172  THE    EXISTENCE    AND 

'•all  the  cunning  and  powerful  adversaries  of  the  gospel  were 
so  hurled  from  their  seats  of  political  power?"  Was  not  polit- 
ical power  during  all  the  lives  of  the  apostles,  and  for  many 
centuries  after,  and  for  the  most  part  till  this  day,  the  leading 
enghie  of  opposition  to  the  gospel?  The  gospel  wrought  its 
way  in  spite  of  political  power,  steadily  arrayed  against  it,  till 
the  days  of  Constantine,  and  then  it  was  received  within  the 
friendly  embrace  of  this  power,  only  to  be  palsied  and  crushed 
the  sooner.  Mr.  B.  would  do  well  to  have  some  care  to  have 
his  interpretations  tally  with  historical  facts. 

Luke  13:  16.  Ought  not  this  woman,  being  a  daughter  of 
Abraham,  whom  satan  hath  bound,  lo  these  eighteen  years,  be 
loosed  from  her  bonds  on  the  Sabbath  day  ?  Here  and  in  some 
of  the  succeeding  passages  1  shall  quote  from  the  above  named 
writer  in  the  Christian  Magazine.  "  In  this  passage  Mr.  B. 
makes  the  cause  and  the  effect,the  agent  and  the  action,one  and 
the  same  thing.  He  makes  the  spirit  of  infirmity,  not  only  the 
satan  who  bound  the  woman,  but  the  bond  Avith  which  she  was 
bound.  Accordingly  satan  must  have  bound  this  woman  with 
himself,  for  eighteen  years.  Ncav  as  &atan  who  bound  her, 
and  the  infirmity  with  which  she  was  bound,  were  one  and  the 
same,  the  passage  may  read  thus : — Ought  not  this  woman 
being  a  daughter  of  Abraham,  whom  the  spirit  of  infirmity 
hath  bound  with  the  spirit  of  infirmity,  lo  these  eighteen  years, 
be  loosed  from  this  spirit  of  infirmity  on  the  Sabbath  day  ? 
Again,  Mr.  B.  says,  this  complaint,  medical  men  have  called  the 
rigidity  of  the  back-bone.  The  rigidity  of  the  back-bone,  there- 
fore, according  to  Mr.  B.  was  the  satan  who  hound  the  woman, 
and  the  satan  with  which  she  was  bound.  The  passage  then, 
may  read  thus — Ought  not  this  woman,  being  a  daughter  of 
Abraham,  whom  the  .rigidity  of  the  back-bone  hath  bound 
witli  the  rigidity  of  the  back-bone,  be  loosed  from  this  rigidity 
of  the  back-bone  on  the  Sabbath  day?  But  Mi.  B.  says,  'let 
us  suppose  that  satan  positively  was  the  cause  of  this  woman's 
disorder,  what  follows  ?  It  follows  that  our  Lord  neither  on  this 
nor  any  other  occasion  warned  men  against  his  great  power  and 
malignity  ;  nor  were  the  people  half  so  much  alarmed  as  they 


AGENCY    OF  EVIL  SPIRITS.  173 

would  have  been  if  a  wild  beast  had  visited  their  neighbor- 
hood.' How  this  conclusion  follows  from  the  premises,  is  a 
matter  which  puzzles  me  much.  Whether  Christ  did  or  did 
not  warn  his  hearers  against  the  power  of  the  devil,  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact  to  be  judged  of  by  those  who  read  the  Bible.  But 
it  does  notfolloio  that  he  did  not  warn  them,  from  the  fact  that 
satan  was  the  cause  of  this  woman's  disorder.  The  premises 
and  conclusion  never  saw  each  other, — they  do  not  belong  to 
the  same  country.  Mr.  B.  further  says,  '  whoever  contends 
that  satan  bound  this  woman,  ought  to  contend  that  all  persons 
so  bound  now,  and  why  not  all  diseases,  are  inflicted  by  him.' 
With  just  as  much  reason  might  you  say,  that  because  certain 
effects  were  wrought,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  by  a  supernatural 
agency,  therefore  all  effects  in  the  material  world  are  miracles. 
Because  the  bread  was  multiplied  to  feed  five  thousand  by  a 
miracle,  so  all  bread  comes  into  being  by  the  touch  of  a  mirac- 
ulous hand.  Because  the  apostles  learned  Greek  by  a  mira- 
cle, therefore  Mr.  Balfour's  Greek  came  by  supernatural  illu- 
2iiination.  Now  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  because  while  he 
was  upon  earth,  who  came  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil, 
satan  was  permitted  to  exhibit  his  malignant  agency  more  vis- 
ibly, by  spending  it  upon  the  bodies  of  men,  in  order  to  afford 
an  opportunity  the  more  strikingly  to  display  the  Redeemer,  in 
his  whole  capacity  of  turning  men  from  darkness  unto  light, 
and  from  the  power  of  satan  unto  God, — it  by  no  means  fol- 
lows that  the  same  phenomena  must  be  exhibited  at  all  times. 
The  exercise  of  a  little  common  seijse  would  have  saved  the 
labor  of  such  an  argument. 

"Luke  22:  3.  Then  entered  satan  into  Judas  surnamed  Iscari- 
ot,  being  of  the  number  of  the  twelve.  On  this  passage  Mr.  B. 
says — 'W  ell,  what  satan  entered  into  Judas  ?  I  answer  the  spir- 
it of  opposition  to  Jesus,  and  the  secret  purpose  to  betray  him.^ 
In  order  to  get  the  true  sense  of  the  verse  therefore,  we  must 
read  it — Then  entered  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  Jesus,  and  the 
secret  purpose  to  betray  him,  into  Judas  surnamed  Iscariot,  be- 
ing of  the  number  of  the  twelve.  John  13:  27.  And  after  the 
15 


174  THE    EXISTENCE    AND 

sop,  satan  entered  into  him.  Here  Mr.  B.  says, '  What  satan  now 
entered  into  Judas  ?  For  it  is  said  in  the  preceding  passage  that 
satan  entered  into  him.  I  answer,  his  fixed  determinalioii  to  ex- 
ecute his  purpose.  This  purpose  is  called  satan  entering  into 
him,  Luke  22:  1 — 7.  And  the  devil  putting  it  into  his  heart 
John  13:  2.'  We  may  therefore  read  the  several  passages  in 
the  following  manner — John  13:  27.  And  after  the  sop  his  fix- 
ed determination  to  execute  his  purpose  entered  into  him^ 
John  13:  2.  And  supper  being  ended  his  secret  purpose  to  betray 
him  having  now  put  it  into  the  heart  of  Judas  Iscariot  Simon's 
son  to  betray  him.  Luke  22:  3.  Then  entered  his  secret  de- 
termination to  execute  his  purpose  into  Judas  surnamed Iscari- 
ot being  of  the  number  of  the  twelve.  It  seems  then  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Balfour's  metaphysics,  that  the  secret  purpose  of  Ju- 
das to  betray  Christ,  put  it  into  his  heart  to  betray  him.  And 
that  \\u  fixed  determination  immediately  to  execute  his  purpose, 
entered  into  him,  and  instigated  him  immediately  to  carry  his 
determination  to  execute  his  purpose  into  execution.  This 
appears  evident,  because  Mr.  B.  within  one  page,  and  in  com-' 
menting  on  that  same  passage,  uses  determination  instead  of 
purpose,  and  makes  it  mean  the  same  thing.  Mr.  B.  then  cer- 
tainly interchanges  purpose,  design  and  determination,  and 
makes  them  all  mean  the  same  thing.  It  seems  that  the  de- 
termination of  Judas  enters  into  him  to  execute  his  purpose, 
and  his  purpose  "puts  it  into  his  heart  to  execute  his  design, 
and  both  his  purpose  and  design  instigate  him  to  execute  his 
determination.  This  must  either  be  a  ifri-devil,  or  else  one  dev- 
il enters  into  Judas  to  execute  another  devil.  In  either  case 
we  think  it  ^surpasses  even  Ezekiel's  vision  of  a  wheel  within  a 
wheel,  and  outdoes  every 'christian  devil,'  and  every  'ortho- 
dox devil,'  of  which  we  ever  heard  or  read. 

"2  Cor.  11:  14.  And  no  marvel ;  for  satan  himself  is  trans- 
formed into  an  angel  of  light.  On  this  passage,  Mr.  B.  en- 
deavors to  prove  as  in  other  places,  that  satan  means  the  '  un- 
believing and  persecuting  Jews.'  In  order  to  get  the  true 
sense  of  the  apostle  then,  we  must  read  this  and  the  following 


AGENCY  OF  EVIL    SPIRITS.  175 

passage  thus — And  no  rxmrve],  for  the  unbelieving  and  persecut- 
ing Jews  himself  is  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light. 

"  Therefore  it  is  no  great  thing  if  his  ministers  also  be  trans- 
formed as  the  ministers  of  righteousness.  Mr.  B.  says  also 
that  the  term  satan,  means  unbelieving  and  persecuting  Jews, 
in  the  following  passages,  which  I  will  read  according  to  his 
translation.  2  Cor.  2:  7.  And  lest  I  should  be  exalted  above 
measure,  through  the  abundance  of  the  revelations,  there  was 
given  to  me  a  thorn  in  the  flesh,  the  messenger  of  the  unhe- 
lieving  and  persecuting  Jews,  to  buffet  me,  lest  I  should  be  exal- 
ted above  measure.  1  Thess.  2:  18.  Wherefore  we  would  have 
come  to  you,  even  I.  Paul,  once  and  again.  But  the  unbeliev- 
ing and  persecuting  Jews  hindered  us.  2  Thes.  2:  9.  Even 
him  whose  coming  is  after  the  workings  of  the  unbelieving  and 
persecuting  Jews  with  all  power  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders. 
1  Tim.  5:  15.  For  some  have  already  turned  aside  after  the  un- 
believing and  persecuting  Jews.  Rev.  2:  9.  I  know  thy  works, 
and  tribulation  and  poverty,  (but  thou  art  rich)  and  I  know  the 
blasphemies  of  them  which  say  they  are  Jews  and  are  not,  but 
are  of  the  synagogue  of  the  unbelieving  and  persecuting  Jews. 
Rev.  3:  9.  Behold  I  will  make  them  of  the  synagogue  of  the 
unbelieving  and  persecuting  Jews  which  say  they  are  Jews, 
and  are  not,  but  do  lie,  behold  I  will  make  them  come  and  wor- 
ship before  thy  feet. 

"1  Peter  5:  8.  Be  sober,  be  vigilant  because  your  adversary 
the  devil  as  a  roaring  lion  walketh  about  seeking  whom  he  may 
devour.  Here  Mr.  B.  says,  'It  is  confidently  believed  ..by 
many  good  people,  that  this  devil  who  walketh  about  like  a 
roaring  lion,  is  a  fallen  angel  or  malignant  spirit.  But  I  ask 
how  is  such  a  belief  to  be  reconciled  with  his  having  his  abode 
•  in  hell,  with  some  in  the  air,  and  others  his  tempting  men  in  all 
parts  of  the  earth  at  the  same  time  ?  Such  a  belief  is  contra- 
ry to  all  facts  and  experience.  Did  ever  any  person  see  the 
devil  in  the  shape  of  a  lion,  hear  him  roar,  oris  an  instance  on 
record  in  the  history  of  mankind,  of  one  being  devoured  by 
him?    Such  idle,  childish  stories  have  been  told  of  the  devil, 


176  THE    EXISTENCE    AND 

but  what  man  in  our  day  gives  the  least  credit  to  them  ?'  Af- 
ter this  taunt  and  long  and  labored  criticism,  Mr.  B.  comes  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  devil  here  means  the  persecuting  Jews. 
The  passage  therefore,  according  to  Mr.  B.  should  stand  thus — 
Be  sober,  be  vigilant,  for  your  adversary,  the  persecuting  Jews, 
as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about  seeking  whom  he  may  devour. 
But  I  ask,  how  is  such  a  belief  to  be  reconciled  with  the  Jews 
having  their  abode  at  Jerusalem,  with  some  that  the  devil  is 
the  principle  of  evil  personified,  and  even  with  Mr.  B.  himself, 
that  the  devil  was  ^Judas'' fixed  determination  to  execute  his  pur- 
poseV  Such  a  belief  is  contrary  to  all  facts  and  experience. 
Did  ever  any  person  see  either  of  these  devils,  in  the  shape  of 
a  lion,  hear  him  roar,  or  is  an  instance  on  record,  of  one  being 
devoured  by  him  ?  Such  idle  and  childish  stories  are  repeat- 
edly told  by  Mr.  B.  and  by  other  Unitarian,  Universalist  and 
Infidel  writers.  But  what  man  who  believes  the  Bible  gives 
the  least  credit  to  them  ? 

"John  8:  44.  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil  and  the  lust  of 
your  father  ye  will  do  ;  he  was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning, 
and  abode  not  in  the  truth.  On  this  passage,  after  quoting 
and  misapplying  Professor  Stuart,  (who  by  the  way  proves 
nothing  to  Mr.  B.'s  purpose)  Mr.  B.  finally  concludes  that  the 
devil  here  referred  to,  means  lust.  So  we  have  it,  ye  are  of 
your  father  the  lust,  and  the  lusts  of  the  lust  ye  will  do.  Lust 
was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning  and  abode  not  in  the  truth, 
because  there  is  no  truth  in  him.  When  lust  speaketh  a  lie 
he  speaketh  of  his  own,  for  lust  is  a  liar  and  the  father  of  it. 
We  may  remark  here,  however,  that  our  Saviour  is  addressing 
those  very  persecuting  Jews,  whom  Mr.  B.  in  other  places 
calls  the  devil  and  Satan.  Now  as  these  Jews  were  of  their 
father  the  lust,  it  seems  that  one  devil  begot  another  devil,  who 
went  about  like  a  roaring  lion  seeking  whom  he  might  devour. 
We  may  be  assured  therefore  that  Mr.  B.  not  only  teaches  the 
true  doctrine  of  devils,  but  gives  us  the  history  of  the  whole  pro- 
geny in  chronological  order.  But  in  order  to  enjoy  a  little  more 
light  on  this  subject,  we  will  endeavor  once  more  to  open  our 


AGENCY    OF   EVIL    SPIRITS.  177 

understandings  to  Mr.  B.'s  metaphysics.  It  is  evident  that 
the  Jews  must  have  lusted  before  their  lusts  could  have  had 
any  influence.  This  appears  from  Mr.  B.'s  own  declarations. 
For  in  order  to  illustrate  his  comment  upon  this  passage,  he 
proceeds  to  quotes  our  Saviour's  address  to  the  Jews.  Ye  do 
the  deeds  of  your  father.  What  father  ?  Asks  Mr.  B.  What 
they  had  seen  or  learned  from  their  own  evil  lusts  eft  passions. 
According  to  this,  the  Jews  must  have  begotten  their  lusf, 
and  their  lusts  must  have  begotten  the  Jews.  So  we  may 
read  it, — Ye  are  of  your  father  the  lusts,  and  the  lusts  of 
your  lusts  ye  will  do,  your  lusts  ivas  a  murderer  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  abode' hot  in  the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth 
in  your  lusts.  When  your  lusts  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of 
his  own,  for  your  lusts  is  a  liar,  and  the  fathor  of  it.  Surely 
Solomon  did  not  live  in  our  day.  He  declared  that  there  is  no 
new  thing  under  the  sun.  But  if  his  happy  lot  had  been  cast 
in  these  days  of  '  interpretation,'  he  might  learn  from  Mr.  B. 
that  the  parents  begot  the"  children  and  the  children  begot  the 
parents," 

But  here  we  must  finish  the  examination  of  particular  passages, 
not  however  for  want  of  the  wherewith  to  entertain  the  reader 
with  our  author's  novelties  of  interpretation  equal  to  any  thing 
yet  exhibited  in  the  language  of  the  writer  above  quoted.  We 
need  not  marvel  that  our  author  is  somev,'hat  given  to  change, 
since  he  had  been  so  much  harrassed  by  lust  and  fixed  deter- 
minations to  bring  himself  before  the  public  and  many  other 
devils  of  which  we  cannot  now  speak  particularly.  We  con- 
fess, however,  that  it  is  not  a  little  surprising  how  Mr.  B.  should 
be  able  to  make  such  a  display  of  profound  erudition  in  the 
oriental  languages,  while  the  translators  of  our  English  version 
were  mere  blockheads  and  gross  pedants.  But  such  things 
have  happened  before,  and  even  a  pedagogue  would  stand 
pre-eminently  learned  in  the  midst  of  gaping  rustics  while 

"  Still  they  gazed  and  still  the  wonder  grew 
That  one  small  head  could  carry  all  he  knew.'' 

Mr.  B.'s  next  chapter  consists  of  objections  to  the  existence 
14* 


178  THE  EXISTENCE  AND 

and  agency  of  evil  spirits — which  we  will  notice  in  nuraericaf- 
order. 

Obj.  1.  "No  distinct  account  is  given  in  scripture  of  an  an- 
gel of  God,  sinning  in  heaven,  and  tliereby  becoming  a  devil, 
and  on  account  of  which  he  was  cast  out  of  it."  If  Christ's  as- 
sertion that  he  beheld  satan  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven — 
and  if  Peter's  assertion  that  God  spared  not  the  angels  that 
sinned,  and  cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into 
chains  of  darkness  to  be  reserved  unto  judgment — and  if  Jude's 
assertion  that  the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first  estate  but 
left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting  chains 
under  darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,  will  not 
satisfy  Mr.  B.  they  will  probably  be  sufficient  for  every  un- 
prejudiced mind. 

Obj.  2.  "  If  it  be  true  that  an  angel  fell  from  heaven,  and  has 
beeji  walking  about  in  the  Avorld  for  near  six  thousand  years, 
how  it  is  accounted  for,  that  no  sacred  writer  asserts,  that  any 
person  ever  saw  him,  or  had  persona]  intercourse  with  him." 
That  men  have  had  no  intercourse  with  evil  spirits,  from  the 
time  of  Eve  till  now,  and  that  none  are  to  have  a  habitation 
with  the  devil  and  his  angels,  is  the  very  thing  for  Mr.  B.  to 
prove,  and  not  to  assume,  and  then  convert  intcf  an  objection. 
If  Mr.  B.'s  difficulty  is  that  no  person  has  ever  seen  and  con- 
versed with  the  devil,  he  should  recollect  that  no  man  hath 
seen  Gorf  at  any  time.  Yet  I  think  he  professes  to  believe 
there  is  a  God. 

Obj.  3.  "  If  an  angel  fell  from  heaven  before  the  sin  of  our 
first  parents,  how  do  our  orthodox  brethren  account  for  the 
fact  that  the  Jews,  to  whom  are  committed  the  lively  oracles 
of  God,  were  obliged  to  go  to  Babylon  to  get  information  about 
such  a  being."  The  question  was  once  started  in  a  philo- 
sophical circle  where  Dr.  Franklin  was  present — IIow  do  you 
account  for  the  fact  that  a  barrel  filled  with  ashes  will  contain 
as  much  water,  as  if  there  were  no  ashes  in  it  ?  After  this  and 
that  man  had  given  a  learned  opinion,  the  question  came  to 
Dr.  Franklin.     And  he  ended  the  investigation  at  once  by 


AGENCV    OF    EVIL  SPIRITS.  17Q 

enquiring,  ivhether  it  be  a  fact.  So  Mr.  B.'s  "  orthodox  breth- 
ren "  will  first  wish  to  be  satisfied  as  to  the  fact,  before  they 
attempt  a  solution.  Any  man,  orthodox,  or  heterodox  who  un- 
dertakes to  account  for  all  of  Mr.  B.'s  facts  without  such  a 
previous  question,  will  soon  find  himself  in  difficulty.  Nor 
will  any  of  Mr.  B.'s  orthodox  brethren  be  driven  to  conviction 
of  this  fact,  by  all  the  learning  spent  by  him  in  proving  that 
the  Jews  went  to  Babylon,  and  that  the  Babylonians  believed 
in  the  existence  of  evil  spirits. 

Obj.  4.  "  It  is  a  notorious  fact  not  easily  accounted  for,  that 
people  in  these  days,  make  a  very  different  use  of  the  terms 
devil  and  satan  from  what  were  made  in  the  days  of  the  inspir- 
ed writers.  In  old  times  people  swore  by  the  name  of  God, 
and  cursed  each  other  by  their  gods,  but  no  one  seems  to 
have  known  how  to  swear  by  satan,  or  the  devil."  Surely  Mr. 
B.  has  as  much  need  to  account  for  this  fact  as  any  one  :  for 
profane  swearing,  and  taking  of  the  devil's  name  in  vain,  is,  to 
to  say  the  least,  quite  as  prevalent,  and  quite  as  little  rebuked, 
in  Universalist  as  in  Orthodox  circles. 

Obj.  5.  "The  Old  Testament  is  often  quoted  in  the  New 
and  quoted  to  show  what  was  the  faith  of  believers  during  that 
dispensation.  But  it  is  never  quoted  or  alluded  to,  showing 
than  any  of  them  believed  the  devil  to  be  a  fallen  angel." 
This  is  another  of  Mr.  B.'s  apocryphal  facts,  which  will  be 
credited  or  not,  as  his  interpretations  are  received  or  not.  But 
suppose  we  admit  it.  There  are  many  things  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament which  are  not  in  the  New,  and  many  things  in  the  New 
which  are  not  in  the  Old. 

Obj.  6.  "It  is  a  fact  that  in  every  country  where  the  bible  is 
not  known  or  not  studied  where  it  is  known,  these  supersti- 
tious notions  have  prevailed  concerning  witches,  evil  spirits, 
ghosts  and  the  devil.  And  just  in  proportion  as  it  has  been 
known  and  studied,  these  have  gradually  been  exploded  and 
renounced  by  the  people."  Here  I  am  happy  perfectly  to 
agree  with  Mr.  B.  as  to  the  general  fact  stated.  But  some  of 
his  examples  are  unfortunately  selected,  being  rather  excep- 


180  THE  EXISTENCE  AND 

tions  than  illustrations  of  the  general  rule.  He  instances  the 
case  of  our  Puritan  fathers,  and  refers  particularly  to  Mather's 
Magnalia,  while  there  never  was  a  race  of  men  who  had  a 
more  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  scriptures  than  these 
same  puritans.  And  does  the  Rev.  Mi\  Balfour  boast  of  his 
thorough  acquaintance  with  the  scriptures,  compared  with  that 
of  Mather! !  Ilis  attainments  are  those  of  the  merest  haby  in 
the  comparison — yea,  few  men  in  modern  days  can  begin  to 
compare  with  this  same  Mather,  in  respect  to  biblical  ac- 
quisitions. And  yet  such  is  the  arrogance  of  literary  coxcombs, 
that  Mr.  Balfour  can  speak  contemptuously  of  Mather.  And 
then  who  are  these  Universalists  that  issue  such  boasts  of 
their  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  scriptures  ?  Where  did 
they  come  by  all  this  knov/ledge?  Are  their  means  of  biblical 
learning  more  elevated,  more  abundant,  or  more  assiduously 
applied,  than  those  of  other  denominations?  How  many  of 
their  ministers  are  even  able  to  read  the  bible  in  its  original 
languages  ?  Yea,  how  many  of  th'ose  among  them  who  pre- 
tend to  publish  criticisms  in  these  languages,  are  able  to  read 
the  Greek  Testament  without  the  aid  of  a  Lexicon  or  transla- 
tion ?  It  is  really  amusing  to  hear  pretensions  to  a  monopoly 
of  biblical  science,  coming  from  such  quarters,  and  a  threaten- 
ing to  pour  daylight  in  upon  the  ignorance  of  the  rest  of  the 
world,  and  to  bring  in  such  a  brightness,  that  our  children 
will  blush  that  they  had  such  ignorant  and  superstitious  fath- 
ers. Mr.  Balfour,  we  pray,  we  beg,  we  beseech  of  you,  not  to 
do  it! !  Spare  us  a  little — forbear  to  pour  the  full  orbed  splen- 
dors, the  scorching  radiations  of  your  science  all  at  once  upon 
us!! 

Obj.  7.  "  It  is  also  a  fact  that  the  common  opinions  entertain- 
ed of  the  devil  are  at  variance  with  other  plain  and  acknowl- 
edged truths  of  the  bible."  As  for  instance  the  devil's  tempt- 
ing men  to  sin.  Then  is  the  bible  plainly  at  war  with  it- 
self. But  here  Mr.  B.  refutes  his  own  objection  by  citing 
some  passages  to  show  that  the  same  things  are  sometimes  as- 
cribed to  God,  to  the  devil,  and  to  men  :  and  this  fact  obviates 


AGENCY  OF    EVIL    SPIRITS.  181 

all  the  difficulty  that  he  makes  out  of  the  assertion  of  James, 
that  every  man  is  tempted,  when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own 
lusts.  For  the  devil  cannot  operate  on  the  mind  to  its  injury, 
but  through  its  own  lusts. 

Obj.  8.  "  It  is  also  a  fact  that  men  in  sinning  are  never  con- 
scious of  the  influence  of  the  devil  upon  them."  And  this  is 
very  true,  and  for  a  good  reason.  For  in  vain  is  the  net  spread 
in  the  sight  of  any  bird.  But  does  our  unconsciousness  of  Sa- 
tanic influence  disprove  it.  Is  Mr.  B.  conscious  of  that  agen- 
cy of  God  in  which  he  lives  and  moves  and  has  his  being  ? 
Can  he  feel  the  touch  of  the  invisible  hand,  that  expands  his 
lungs,  and  propels  his  blood  ?  yet  I  suppose  he  does  not  doubt 
of  that  agency. 

Obj.  9.  "  It  is  also  a  fact  that  the  common  opinions  enter- 
tained of  the  devil,  whether  right  or  wrong,' are  the  effect  of 
early  education,  and  popular  opinion."  It  may  be  so ;  but 
such  a  fact  is  no  proof  of  the  right  or  the  wrong  of  the  opin- 
ions. Most  of  the  right  opinions  we  have  in  religion  came  to 
us  originally  through  such  sources.  And  some  Universalists 
get  their  opinions  from  early  education,  though  none  would  re- 
ly on  such  a  proof  of  their  falsity.  Is  it  not  rather  strange,  that 
all  the  rationality  and  freedom  from  bias,  and  all  the  unpreju- 
diced examination  of  the  scriptures,  should  be  on  the  side  of 
the  Universalists? 

Obj.  10.  "The  last  fact  which  I  shall  mention  is,  that  allowing 
the  personal  existence  of  the  devil  fully  proved,  it  is  beyond  all 
doubt  that  he  had  been  much  misrepresented  and  his  char- 
acter abused  by  many  christian  people."  It  may  be  so,  and  it 
is  very  kind  in  Mr.  B.  to  undertake  his  vindication.  May  he 
have  all  success  in  this  part  of  his  learned  labor.  "  Give  the 
devil  his  due."  But  I  see  not  what  this  has  to  do  as  a  "  fact 
showing  that  the  devil  is  not  a  fallen  angel  or  a  real  being," 
yet  it  is  so  called  in  the  heading  of  the  chapter.  Many  persons 
have  been  abused  and  yet  they  retain  a  personal  existence. 

Mr.  B's  reply  to  objections  anticipated  by  himself,  I  am  not 
interested  to  notice.  It  embraces  few  if  any  of  the  arguments 
which  an  intelligent  believer  of  satanic  agency  would  use. 


182  THE  EXISTENCE  AND 

His  last  chapter  is  employed  in  painting  the  ill  effects  of  a  be- 
lief in  the  existence  of  satan,  and  in  ranting  and  railing  against 
orthodox  views  in  general.  Now  the  effects  of  orthodox  doc- 
trines may  be  very  bad  in  his  esteem,  and  yet  these  doctrines 
still  be  found  in  the  word  of  God.  And  it  is  therefore  net  need- 
ful to  controvert  him  here.  But  if  the  question  turned  on  the 
effects  of  the  respective  systems,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  ortho- 
doxy would  not  shrink  from  a  comparison  with  Universalism. 


CHAPTER    XL 


CREDULITY   OF   THE  DISCIPLES    OF    BALFOUR. 

A  CAREFUL  observer  of  the  difFerent  systems  of  religions  er- 
ror will  generally  find  them  the  most  wanting  in  respect  to 
those  things,  wherein  their  pretensions  are  highest.  The  In- 
fidel boasts  of  a  great  enlargement  and  deliverance  from  su- 
perstitions, but  if  the  biographyof  many  of  the  leading  Infidels 
can  determine  the  matter,  infidel  character  is  especially  prone 
to  superstitions.  Infidels  are  fond  of  dwelling  upon  and  mag- 
nifying the  existing  differences  among  Christians,  on  questions 
with  regard  to  religion  and  morals,  v/hile  the  writings  of  Infi- 
dels on  these  subjects,  furnish  one  complete  mass  of  contra- 
diction and  jargon.  No  class  of  persons  make  higher  preten- 
tions to  candor  than  Infidels,  and  none  violates  its  plainest 
rules  more  egregiously.  None  accuse  their  opponents  more 
largely  of  credulity,  while  the  charge  of  credulity  attaches 
with  unansAverable  force  to  the  Infidel.  The  compass  of  infi- 
del credulity  is  thus  vividly  set  forth  in  the  language  of  Home 
— "  They  admit  that  a  few  illiterate  Jews  devoted  to  a  nation- 
al religion,  conquered  their  prejudices,  and  published  a  uni- 
versal religion,  Avhich  Avas  free  from  the  numerous  rites  and 
ceremonies  of  their  nation,  that  they  taught  religious  and  mor- 
al doctrines,  surpassing  the  wisdom  of  the  highest  heathens — 
subdued  the  power  and  policy  of  Jews  and  Gentiles — speedily 
propagated  their  tenets  among  many  nations,  and  conquered 
the  pride  of  learning,  without  divine  assistance.  The  oppos- 
ers  of  revelation  admit  that  many  persons  united  in  propagat- 
ing a  forgery  which  produced  them  no  advantage,  and  that  not 
one  of  them  was  induced,  either  by  promises  or  threats,  to  be- 
tray a  plot,  or  disown  a  testimony  which  exposed  them  to  in- 


184  CREDULITY    OF  THE 

conveniences,  to  insult,  imprisonment,  tortures  and  death — 
that  impostors  were  attached  to  virtue,  and  voluntarily  endur- 
ed every  evil,  in  order  to  propagate  opinions  that  were  bene- 
ficial to  society,  but  detrimental  to  themselves — that  bad  men 
reformed  the  religion  and  manners  of  all  nations,  or  that  good 
men  attempted  it  by  fraud  and  imposture.  They  admit  that  a 
few  ignorant  fishermen  were  able  to  make  proselytes  in  oppo- 
sition to  power  and  prejudice,  to  eloquence  and  learning, — that 
crafty  men  chose  for  their  hero  a  crucified  malefactor,  and  suf- 
fered every  evil  in  order  to  establish  the  religion  of  an  impos- 
tor who  deluded  them  by  false  promises,  if  he  did  not  rise  from 
the  dead."  Yet  these  are  the  men  who  pity  the  credulity  of 
all  the  world  except  themselves.  Universalism  makes  equal- 
ly large  pretensions  to  deliverance  from  superstition,  and  cre- 
dulity. But  it  were  easy  to  show,  that  few  ate  more  credulous 
than  he  who  admits  the  various  tenets  embraced  in  that  sys- 
tem. The  truth  is,  that  as  when  the  heart  of  man  throws  off 
the  pressure  of  moral  restraints,  it  becomes  the  more  a  slave  to 
lust,  exchanging  deliverance  from  the  fear  of  God,  for  bond- 
age to  satan  ; — so  the  understanding,  when  it  exchanges  the 
dominion  of  truth  for  that  of  error,  affects  to  rest  on  a  more 
solid  basis  than  before,  while  leaning  on  the  most  airy  delu- 
sion. The  man  congratulates  himself  on  his  rationality,  his 
ability  to  make  the  word  of  God  harmonize  with  an  improved 
philosophy,  and  feels  the  sincerest  pity  for  those  who  can  be 
so  credulous  as  to  satisfy  themselves  with  vulgar  opinions  ; 
while  in  fact,  all  he  has  gained  is,  iha.t  strong  delusion  to  be- 
lieve a  lie.  He  has  come  to  such  a  state  of  mind,  that  the  great- 
est absurdities  can  be  devoured  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  most 
cogent  reasons  despised  on  the  other. 

Having  examined  at  some  length,  the  most  material  of  Mr. 
B.'s  views  and  interpretations,  1  have  thought  best  here  to  go 
back,  and  get  some  illustrations  of  the  credulity  of  those  who 
embrace  the  system  of  Universalism,  according  to  Balfour. 
In  the  first  place,  that  so  large  a  part  of  the  Bible  should  relate 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  a  matter  that  requires  some 
credulity  to  digest.     I  have  deemed  it  worth  the  while  to  be- 


DISCIPLES    OF    BALFOUR.  185 

stow  some  labor,  and  patience  in  order  to  ascertain,  how  much 
of  the  New  Testament  is  made,  in  the  books  of  Messrs.  B.  and 
W.  before  me,  to  refer  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
national  calamities  connected  with  it.  For  this  purpose  I  have 
selected  the  gospel  according  to  Matthew,  and  undertaken  to 
analyze  it  with  reference  to  this  question.  I  have  divided  this 
gospel  into  three  parts — those  passages  which  contain  the 
mere  narrative  of  the  historian — those  which  contain  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ,  and  are  made  to  refer  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalen,  and  the  national  judgments  connected  with  it — and 
those  containing  such  of  Christ's  discourses  as  have  not  been 
made  to  refer  to  that  event.  I  have  done  this,  that  it  may  be 
seen  how  much  of  this  gospel  is  left  after  taking  out  all  that 
they  refer  to  that  event.  And  I  have  chosen  this  Book  as  a 
fair  specimen  of  the  other  gospels, — presuming  that  the  pro- 
portion so  referred  in  them  also,  v/ill  not  materially  differ.* 

By  tills  examination  it  appears,  that  by  the  amount  of  one 
chapter  more  of  the  preaching  of  Christ,  reported  in  Matthew's 
Gospel,  respects  the  destruction  c-f  Jerusalem,  than  was  em- 
ployed on  all  other  subjects.  Before  we  can  admit  the  inter- 
pretations of  these  men,  we  must  bring  our  minds  to  believe 
that  Christ  in  his  discourses  said  more  about  the  destruction 

*The  whole  of  the  first  and  second  chapters  contain  the  genealo- 
gy and  history  of  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Christ,  and  must  be 
placed  under  the  head  of  narrative.  The  third  chapter,  giving  an 
account  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  his  preaching,  and  the  baptism 
of  Cbrist,  is  all  narrative,  except  that  portion  which  is  a  report  of 
John's  preaching.  This,  though  not  one  of  Christ's  discourses, 
may  with  no  unfairness  as  it  relates  to  this  enquiry  be  counted  with 
the'm.  And  these  verses  are  by  Mr.  W.  p.  1,  made  to  refer  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  fourth  chapter,  contains  the  nar- 
rative of  the  temptation  of  Christ,  and  of  the  calling  of  his  disci- 
ples; and  is  all  narrative.  The  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh,  contain 
the  sermon  on  the  mount.  None  of  this  is  narrative,  except 
the  first  two  verses  of  the  fifth  and  the  last  two  of  the  seventh. 
Chap.  5,  verses  21 — 23  is  referred  by  Mr.  B.'s  Inq,  p.  135  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Verses  27 — 30,  p.  137  is  referred  to  the 
same.  Chap.  7:  15 — 20  Mr.  W.  p.  25  refers  to  the  same.  21 — 27 
Mr,  W,  p  28  refers  to  the  same.  The  next  chapter  is  all  narrative, 
except  verses  11  and  12:  and  these  Mr.  W,  refers  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  Of  chap.  9.  all  narrative  except  12 — 17,  And 
16 


186  CREDULITY    OF    THE 

of  Jerusalem,  than  he  said  in  preaching  of  the  gospel.  For 
Mr.  B.  admits  that  this  kind  of  discourse  was  not  preaching  the 
gospel.  In  his  first  Inquiry,  p.  200  he  says,  "  In  all  the  texts 
where  he  (Christ)  speaks  of  hell,  he  was  not  preaching  the  gos- 
pel, but  addressing  the  Jews  about  temporal  calamities  coming 
on  them  as  a  people."  According  to  this  principle,  Christ 
preached  but  very  little  Gospel.  Then  if  these  writers  had 
given  us  a  complete  commentary  of  the  whole  gospel  of  Mat- 
thew, they  would  have  found  the  same  necessity  of  referring 
no  small  portion  of  what  they  have  left  us  for  gospel,  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  so  making  it  no  gospel.  Almost 
all  that  they  have  commented  on,  they  have  thus  ungospelled, 
and  what  reason  have  we  to  believe  that  they  would  spare  the 
rest?  Now  were  I  called  upon  to  give  credit  to  the  views  of 
this  class  of  commentators,  I  should  here  be  stumbled  at  the 
threshhold — should  deem  it  a  bold  tax  upon  my  credulity,  to 
be  asked  to  believe,  that  the  great  subject  of  Christ's  preach- 
ing was  found  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  that  spiritual 
and  immortal  interests  were  a  mere  circumstance,  an  inciden- 
tal adjunct  of  the  other.  And  if  I  ever  succeeded  in  digesting 
the  monstrous  absurdity,  I  would  be  honest  enough  to  call 
things  by  right  names,  and  label  the  New  Testament  "  Jeru- 

this  is  not  referred  to  national  calamities  Of  chap.  10,  the  first  5 
arc  narrative,  14  and  1.5  referred  by  Mr.  B.  Essays  249,  to  nation- 
al calamities.  And  28 — 31  is  referred  Inq.  p.  150  to  the  same.  Of 
chap.  11,  first  4  narrative,  20 — 24  referred  by  Mr.  B.  p.  .58  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Of  chap.  12,  verses  1,  2,  9 — 17,  22 — 24 
and 46 — 50  are  narrative  and  25 — 32  Mr.  B.'s  2d  Inq.  p.  299  refers 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  And  33 — 37  in  Essays  p.  251  is 
referred  to  the  same.  And  38 — 42  in  Essays  p.  251  is  referred  to 
the  same.  And  43—45  Mr.  W.  p.  37,  refers  to  the  same.  Of 
chap.  13  the  S-first  are  narrative  24—30,  Mr.  W.  p.  51  refers  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  next  8  verses  Mr.  W.  p.  61,  refei-s 
to  the  same.  The  last  6  are  narrative.  Chap.  14,  all  narrative. 
Of  chap.  15,  none  is  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  25 
of  its  verses  narrative.  Of  chap.  16,  first  16  verses  narrative.  21 
— 23  narrative,  24 — 27  Essays  p.  32  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem. Chap.  17  all  narrative.  Chap.  18  two  first  narrative,  7 
— 14  by  Mr.  W.  p.  10  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Chap.  19  the  1,  2,  3,  7,  10  and  IC,  narrative,  all  after  the  16  refer- 
red by  Mr.  W.  p.  182  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Chap.  20, 


DISCIPLES    OF     BALFOUR.  187 

salem's  Destruction  Foretold."  And  then  I  •would  lay  it 
aside,  as  a  book  which  interested  me  no  more  than  any  other 
treatise  upon  times  and  events  so  remote, — as  fit  only  for  anti- 
quarian purposes — lay  it  aside  on  the  ground  that  what  was 
written  mainly  and  so  exclusively  for  the  men  that  lived  near 
^000  years  ago,  could  claim  little  authority  and  influence  over 
me.  When  I  read  in  the  Old  Testament,  histories  and  proph- 
ecies relating  to  temporal  affairs,  and  national  events,  I  feel  an 
interest  in  it  and  derive  instruction  from  it,  because  I  see  in 
all  those  events  a  preparation  for  the  introduction  of  the  gos- 
pel dispensation.  I  see  in  all  previous  events,  the  whole  cre- 
ation groaning  and  travailing,  to  bring  forth  him  who  was  the 
redemption  of  the  church.  And  therefore  I  see  an  ample  rea- 
son, why  all  those  histories  and  prophecies,  should  have  a  place 
in  an  inspired  book,  bearing  the  name  of  the  "  Revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ."  And  I  see  how  to  derive  divine  and  practical 
instruction  from  them  all.  Considered  in  this  light  evangeli- 
cal prophecy  becomes  as  important,  interesting  and  practical 
as  evangelical  history.  But  when  all  the  historical,  didactic 
and  hortatory  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  are  made  to  termi- 
minate  in  Jerusalem's  destruction,  an  event  having  so  few  im- 
portant connexions  with  the  world's  subsequent  history,  and 

first  IG  verses,  continuation  of  the  same  subject  and  by  Mr.  W.  re- 
ferred to  the  same.  The  next  8  and  last  5  narrative.  Chap.  21, 
first  23  and  last2  narrative.  33—44  by  Mr.  W.  p.  1?6,  referred  to 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Chap.  22,  first  14  referred  by  Mr,  W. 
p.  117  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  next  14  and  verses  33 — 
36  and  41  and  42  and  46  are  narrative.  Chap.  23,  all  is  directed  to- 
wards a  conclusion  which  Mr.  B.  p.  163  refers  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  and  is  so  connected  that  if  any  refers  to  that,  all 
does.  The  next  two  chapters  both  Mr.  W.  and  Mr.  B.  argue  at 
great  length  in  a  reference  of  them  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. The  next  3  are  all  narrative  except  the  last  3  verses.  And 
here  ends  the  book.  Now  the  reader  may  if  it  be  worth  his  while 
taking  these  results  and  put  them  together  and  he  will  find  this 
general  result. — There  are  in  Matthew's  gospel  according  to  this 
examination  of  universalist  interpretations,  523  verses  of  narrative, 
296  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  257  of  Christ's  dis- 
courses not  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  i.  e.  39  verses 
more  of  Christ's  discourses  referred  to  the  destruction  ofJerusa- 
Jem,  than  of  those  which  are  not  so  referred. 


188  CREDULITY    OF    THE 

conduct,  the  sacred  book  is  divested  of  its  main  interest  and 
influence  over  me.  Before  I  could  believe  tiiis,  I  should  hes- 
itate upon  the  thought  that  Jesus  Christ  should  come  from  hea- 
ven to  earth,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  warning-  that  nation  of 
the  coming  destruction— that  he  should  undergo  what  he  did 
for  such  a  purpose — make  all  his  instructions  and  laborious 
teaching  point  mainly  to  that — that  he  should  exhaust  the  re- 
sources of  eternal  wisdom,  and  in  the  end  take  upon  him  such 
a  death,  as  mere  mortal  never  underwent,  for  that  object,  and 
then,. fail  as  he  did  at  the  last.  For  failure  most  complete  it 
Avas,  if  the  great  purpose  of  his  coming  and  ministry  was  the 
salvation  of  that  people  from  their  national  calamities.  If  this 
were  "  the  joy  set  before  him,  for  which  he  endured  the  cross 
despising  the  shame,"  it  was  a  joy  never  attained, — nay,  nev- 
er expected  ;  for  he  knew  and  his  prophets  foretold  before  he 
came,  that  the  nation  was  to  be  destroyed.  However  much 
my  guilty  heart  might  desire  the  belief,  that  the  main  threat- 
enings  and  warnings  of  Scripture,  had  their  termination  in  Je- 
rusalem's overthrow,  my  understanding  and  my  conscience 
would  rebel.  That  Enoch  before  the  flood  had  a  prophetic 
eye  on  the  Roman  army,  as  often  thousand  ^ainfs  coming  with 
Christ  to  execute  judgment  upon  Jerusalem — that  Korah  and 
his  company  under  the  name  of  angels  that  sinned,  having  been 
annihilated,  soul  and  body,  fifteen  centuries  before,  were  still 
"  reserved"  to  sustain  the  heaviest  force  of  their  punishment  in 
Jerusalem's  destruction — that  apostles,  writing  to  the  Gentile 
churches  who  never  saw  Jerusalem,  and  who  were  not  in  a 
way  to  be  seriously  affected  by  its  destruction,  made  this  a 
leading  topic  in  all  their  letters — earnestly  warning  them 
against  that  day,  as  one  that  was  to  fix  their  eternal  destiny — 
are  no  easy  matters  to  believe.  A  demand  that  I  shall  digest 
all  this  is  about  equivalent  to  calling  upon  me  to  believe  that 
Jerusalem  is  the  central  point  in  the  universe,  and  that  all  the 
nations  and  generations  of  the  world  are  merely  its  suburbs,  and 
all  other  worlds  its  dependent  provinces.  That  the  destruc- 
tion of  this  city  was  an  event,  in  Avhich  all  others  had  their  ter- 
mination, and  central  design,  the  v*'hole  chain  of  causes  andef^ 


DISCIPLES    OF    BALFOUR.  189 

fect3  from  the  morning  of  eternity  onward  being  only  subsi- 
diary adjuncts  of  this — in  short,  that  here  is  the  original  point 
from  which  go  out  all  the  divine  counsels  and  influences,  and 
to  which  returns  the  whole  revenue  of  divine  glory. 

Again,  the  Universalists  make  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead  to  be  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  And 
there  is  a  sense  in  Avhich  it  is  truly  so.  But  they  exalt  this 
doctrine  more  than  any  other  class  of  religionists,  in  that  they 
find  in  it  the  restoration  not  only  of  the  life  of  the  body,  but 
also  of  the  soul.  And  not  only  this,  they  find  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  a  substitute  for  holiness  of  life  and  conver- 
sion to  God  in  this  life,  making  it  work  such  transformations  of 
character  as  to  save  all  necessity  of  a  man's  preparing  for 
heaven  before  he  dies.  And  yet  they  pretend  that  they 
can  believe  that  a  doctrine  so  important  to  them,  as  that  of  the 
resurrection,  it  but  seldom  mentioned  in  the  discourses  of 
Christ,  while  the  destructicn  of  Jerusalem  is  on  all  occasions 
the  theme  of  remark.  My  memory  now  does  not  fix  upon 
more  than  one  instance  in  all  the  gospels,  where  they  will  al- 
low that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  tauglit. 
And  yet  they  will  have  us  believe  that  an  event  of  no  more  im- 
portance in  the  history  of  the  world,  which  he  came  to  save, 
than  that  of  Jerusalem's  destruction,  can  occupy  the  greater 
part  of  his  discourses,  recorded  in  the  evangelists.  They  ask 
us  to  believe  that  the  whole  gospels  are  a  perpetual  sing-song 
of  Jerusalem's  destruction,  and  yet  so  important  a  doctrine  as 
that  of  the  resurrection  comes  near  to  being  overlooked,  and 
forgotten.     It  requires  some  credulity  to  admit  such  an  idea. 

If  I  would  be  a  Universalist  after  the  model  of  these  writ- 
ers, I  must  furthermore  believe  that  Paul  being  now  ready  to  be 
offered,  and  the  time  of  his  departure  at  hand,  had  his  soul  filled 
with  emotions  unutterable,  in  anticipation  of  a  crown  that  he 
was  to  receive  at  the  time  of  Jerusalem's  destruction — 20  years 
after  he  was  dead,  soul  and  body  ;  and  to  come  at  this  edifying 
doctrine,  I  must  believe  that  Gi-ecian  games  were  duels  where 
men  contended  unto  death,  instead  of  Avrestling  and  racing,  as 
they  are  represented  in  the  classics,  and  that  the  party  kill- 
16* 


190  CREDULITY    OF  THE 

ed  in  these  duels,  was  sometimes  the  victor.  And  I  must  be- 
lieve, because  Mr.  B.  has  somewhere  read  "  in  the  course  of 
his  reading," — he  cannot  tell  us  where— that  a  dead  victor  in 
such  duels  was  crowned  for  his  valor  after  his  death.  And 
that  Paul  was  anxiously  aspiring  for  the  post  mortem  crown 
that  was  to  be  awarded  to  him  as  an  apostle  of  the  Gentiles 
when  the  Jews  should  be  overthrown. 

I  am  furthermore  asked  to  believe,  contrary  to  the  testimony 
of  prophecy,  and  history,  that  the  lime  of  Jerusalem's  destruc- 
tion was  to  Christians  throughout  the  world,  a  season  of  grand 
and  glorious  jubilee.  That  instead  of  their  being  in  a  condi- 
tion of  "  fleeing  to  the  mountains,"  as  Christ  taught  them  to 
expect,  and  instead  of  the  Gentile  churches  being  in  a  state  of 
severe  persecution,  and  under  the  full  pressure  of  heathen  hos- 
tility, as  historians  have  led  us  to  suppose,  they  were  enjoying 
that  glorious  rest  with  the  apostles  then  dead,  i.  e.  annihilated, 
which  was  to  take  place  when  the  Lord  Jesus  comes  from  hea- 
ven, to  be  glorified  of  his  saints,  and  admired  in  all  them  that 
believe.  I  must  also  give  my  faith  to  the  notion,  that  all  the 
passages  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  eternal,  or  everlasting- 
life,  refer  to  something  in  this  life,  and  do  not  mean  that  bless- 
edness enjoyed  by  the  saints  in  heaven,  and  yet  that  the  Bi- 
ble somehow  reveals  an  everlasting  life  in  heaven,  i.  e.  that 
the  Bible  reveals  everlasting  life,  yet  when  it  speaks  of  it,  it 
means  no  such  thing.  I  must  also  believe,  that  in  all  the  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  the  resurrection,  not  a  word  is  said  about 
any  coming  forth  to  damnation.  I  must  believe,  that  the  resur- 
rection to  damnation  is  a  moral  resurrection — that  a  man  is 
first  raised  by  it  to  spiritual  life,  and  then  finds  his  damnation 
in  reward  for  his  spiritual  life  in  Jerusalem's  destruction,  1 
must  believe,  that  when  the  word  everlasting  is  found  in  con- 
nexion with  punishment,  that  itself  is  an  intimation  that  it  is  a 
punishment  limited  to  this  world,  i.  e.  the  word  everlasting  ap- 
plied to  punishment  is  prima  fade  proof  that  everlasting  pun- 
ishment is  not  meant — that  "this  very  application  of  the  word 
everlasting  is  a  strong  confirming  circumstance,  inproof  of  the 
views  he  has  advanced."     See  his  comments  on  2  Thes.  1:  6. 


DISCIPLES     OF    BALFOUR.  19l 

I  must  furthermore  believe  that  man  has  not  an  immortal  soul. 
That  death  is  annihilation  of  both  body  and  soul,  a  passing  in- 
to unconscious  nothingness,  there  to  remain  till  the  resurrec- 
tion. And  to  sustain  this  important  pillar  of  the  system,  I 
must  believe  that  when  God  appeared  to  Moses  in  the  bush, 
after  the  death  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  asserted  him- 
self to  be  the  God  of  these  Patriarchs,  it  was  not  true  as 
Christ  supposed,  that  He  was  therefore  at  that  time,  and  in  re- 
spect to  them,  the  God  of  the  living.  And  for  the  same  rea- 
son I  must  believe,  that  when  we  are  commanded  to  fear  not 
them  which  kill  the  body,  but  him  who  can  destroy  both  soul 
and  body  in  hell — though  the  death  of  the  body  is  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  soul,  yet  man  has  a  life  capable  of  being  killed  after 
both  body  and  soul  is  extinct,  and  this  life  God  and  not  man 
can  kill,  and  the  killing  of  this  mysterious  indefinable  life  is 
the  matter  to  be  dreaded  and  provided" against. 

I  must  furthermore  believe,  if  I  would  attain  to  the  exalted 
blessedness  of  Universalism,  taste  its  fruits,  and  exhibit  its 
practical  results,  that  the  souls'  condition  in  the  future  state,  is 
not  at  all  affected  by  conduct  and  character  here.  Or  in 
the  language  of  Mr.  W.  that  "the  future  state  of  immortality 
and  incorruption,  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things  be  affected 
by  the  conduct  of  men  in  this  life,  but  that  whatever  men  there 
enjoy,  will  be  the  effect  of  the  constitution  in  which  they  are 
raised  from  the  dead."  The  same  idea  is  put  out  in  a  more 
practical  form,  in  the  following  quotation  from  the  Trumpet, 
a  periodical  edited  by  Mr.  W.  It  is  from  the  number  dated, 
August  3,  1833,  as  follov/s  : — •'  Many  people  profess  religion 
for  the  purpose  of  pleasing  God.  This  we  must  be  permit- 
ted to  think  is  not  the  design  of  religion.  If  we  rightly  un- 
derstand it,  its  design  is  to  please  and  benefit  man.  If  we  do 
not  err  in  judgment  very  much,  it  is  great  folly  to  suppose 
that  the  Almighty  is  pleased  or  angry,  just  as  far  as  man  is  re- 
ligious or  irreligious."  So  we  must  believe,  not  only  tliat 
our  good  conduct  can  do  nothing  as  to  bettering  our  condition 
in  the  future  world,  but  also  that  God  is  no  better  pleased  with 
us  on  account  of  it.    That  to  phase  man  is  the  leading  purpose 


192  CREDULITY    OF    THE 

of  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  of  course,  that  this  religion  is  to 
be  received  or  rejected,  or  any  way  used,  according  to  man's 
good  pleasure.  That  if  I  am  the  best  pleased  to  understand  it 
as  having  higher  and  holier  ends  than  the  pleasure  of  man,  it 
is  well.  Its  end  is  answered,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  Or 
if  I  please  to  understand  it  as  a  licence  to  sin,  it  is  well,  or  if  I 
am  pleased  to  treat  it  with  utter  contempt  it  is  well.  If  I  please 
to  say  it  is  vain  to  serve  God,  and  what  profit  shall  we  have  if 
we  pray  unto  him,  and  that  I  canfind  no  pleasuie  in  his  religion, 
that  religion  having  come  for  my  pleasure  and  found  that  I 
have  no  pleasure  in  it,  will  of  course  urge  no  demands  upon  my 
acceptance.  In  short,  I  must  believe  that  as  the  whole  design  of 
religion  is  not  to  please  God,  but  men,  it  is  incumbent  on  God  to 
shape  it  so  as  best  to  suit  the  pleasure  of  men.  If  men  find  pleas- 
ure in  wickedness,  he  must  adapt  religion  to  encourage  them  in 
wickedness.  Do  you  say  that  the  pleasure  and  benefit  of  man 
are  the  same  ?  Not  always.  But  be  it  so.  On  your  hypothesis 
religion  can  never  seek  the  benefit  of  man  by  crossing  his  will. 
For  if  you  require  a  man  to  conform  to  the  will  and  pleasure 
of  God,  contrary  to  his  own  inclination,  then  is  your  religion 
for  the  pleasure  of  God,  rather  than  of  man.  It  is  then  no 
longer  true  that  God  is  not  pleased  or  displeased,  according  as 
man  is  leligious  or  irreligious. 

Further  I  must  believe,  that  Avhen  the  apostle  says,  It  is  ap- 
pointed unto  man  once  to  die,  and  after  this  the  judgment,  he 
means — It  is  appointed  unto  men  to  die,  and  after  death  the 
decomposition  of  the  body.  I  must  see  my  way  clear  to  be- 
lieve that  man  can  lose  his  life  as  a  martyr,  and  then  receive  as 
the  reward  of  his  martyrdom,  his  life  in  this  world  by  the  loss. 
I  must  believe  that  Christ,  when  he  made  to  the  penitent  thief 
an  answer  to  his  dying  request  to  be  remembered  wlien  he  came 
into  his  kingdom,  said  to-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  inthe  s;mvt. 
I  must  believe  that  the  souls  which  John  in  vision,  saw  under 
the  altar  interceding  for  the  execution  of  justice  on  their  mur- 
derers, were  no  souls,  but  the  blood  of  those  martyrs,  praying 
that  their,  that  is  the  blood's  blood  might  be  avenged.  I  must  be- 
lieve that  Paul,  knowing  death  to  be  the  entrance  upon  un- 


DISCIPLES    OF    BALFOUR.  193 

conscious  nothingness,  had  a  desire  rather  to  die  than  live, 
and  serve  Christ  and  his  church  on  earth.  And  that  this  state  of 
annihilation  was  being  with  Christ  and  better  than  living  in  this 
world  in  the  full  perfection  of  that  enjoyment,  which  Mr.  B. 
calls  eternal  life.  Or  in  other  words,  that  annihilation  is  bet- 
ter than  eternal  life.  And  in  order  to  find  the  way  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  words  translated  hell  means  no  such  thing, 
I  must  believe  that  words  have  no  meaning,  but  what  were 
given  by  inspiration.  And  I  must  insist  on  admitting  no 
meaning  to  any  word  until  I  find  a — Thus  saith  the  Lord — this 
word  means  so  and  so. 

Further,  if  you  will  be  a  true  Balfourean,  you  must  believe 
that  Christ  was  not  compassionate  enough  for  the  occasion, 
provided  there  be  an  eternal  hell,  and  you  must  build  strong 
conclusions  on  his  want  of  zeal  for  a  dying  world — that  the 
apostles  were  not  zealous  enough,  to  prove  that  they  appre- 
hended any  future  punishment,  for  the  unbelief  of  men.  That 
though  the  beliefof  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  should 
have  wrought  up  the  apostles  to  ten-fold  greater  exertions 
than  they  put  forth  in  missionary  enterprises,  the  whole  bus- 
iness of  missions  now,  for  those  who  believe  the  same  doc- 
trine, is  a  contemptible  affair.  You  must  furthermore  believe 
that  there  is  no  devil,  and  that  the  langurge  of  the  Bible  which 
speaks  of  such  a  being,  means  anything  and  everything,  but 
what  it  seems  to  mean — now  lust  or  desire — now  Sabean  and 
Chaldean  free-booters — now  the  anger  of  Jehovah — now  hun- 
ger, now  flesh  and  blood,  now  the  glory  and  grandeur  of  the 
world,  now  rigidity  of  the  back-bone,  now  a  secret  purpose  to 
betray  Jesus,  now  a  determination  to  execute  this  purpose,  and 
last,  though  not  least,  the  persecuting  Jews.  You  must  fur- 
thermore believe,  that  Universalism  is  the  fruit  of  more  thor- 
ough acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures,  of  more  patient  exam- 
ination, more  abundant  and  better  plied  means  of  biblical  in- 
struction than  exists  in  sects  that  are  superstitious  enough  to 
believe  there  is  a  devil — in  short,  that  the  Universalists  are  the 
people  and  wisdom  will  die  with  them. 

This  system  lays  a  grievous  tax  on  our  credulity  in  another 


194  CREDULITY    OF    THE 

quarter,  requiring  us  lo  admit  new  and  strange  principles  of 
interpretation.  It  every  where  assumes  that  it  is  enough  to 
show  that  a  word  or  phraze  may  have  in  some  connexions  the  de  - 
sired  meaning,  in  order  to  prove  that  it  has  it  in  the  case  consid- 
ered. It  cuts  short  the  labor  of  applying  acknowledged  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation,  and  from  them  determining  what  the 
writer  means,  but  searches  out  instances  without  regard  to 
connexion,  where  the  word  is  used  in  the  desired  sense.  For 
instance — it  wants  to  prove  that  everlasting  punishment  is  a 
something  limited  to  this  life,  and  it  overlooks  the  multitudes 
of  cases  where  the  word  everlasting  is  used  in  the  literal  ob- 
vious sense,  and  finds  a  few  cases  where  it  is  used  in  a  met- 
aphorical and  limited  sense,  and  thence  jumps  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  everlasting  punishment  means  a  temporal  punish- 
ment. So  when  it  is  attempted  to  show  that  paradise  means 
the  grave,  and  not  a  place  of  happiness  for  departed  spirits,  it 
is  not  even  pretended  that  the  word  is  used  in  any  author,  sa- 
cred or  profane,  in  that  sense,  but  that  there  is  a  word  in  some  of 
the  Shemitish  languages,  enough  like  it  to  be  its  root.  And  that 
this  word  means  ^'  to  separate,"  and  that  therefore  the  word 
means  an  enclosure,  and  therefore  the  grave.  And  whenever 
it  happens  that  even  such  a  method  is  impracticable — and  one 
would  think  the  cases  might  be  rare — then  without  any  expo- 
sition  of  roots,  or  any  instances  of  a  like  meaning — we  have 
Mr.  B.'s  assertion,  that  the  word  means  so  and  so.  See  his 
comments  on  John  12:  48,  the  word  translated  judge.  When 
the  whole  of  Mr.  B.'s  leading  principle  of  interpretation  seems 
to  be,  that  if  by  any  process  of  torturing  plain  language,  the  de^ 
sired  meaning  can  be  extracted  from  it,  it  is  lawful  and  safe 
to  do  it.  But  if  the  laws  of  the  commonwealth  were  interpre- 
ted after  this  manner,  they  could  not  be  put  in  force.  If  the 
blackest  offender  were  allowed  to  use  the  same  quibbles  in 
his  defence,  he  could  easily  enough  show  that  there  is  no  law 
against  him.  We  are  required  then  to  believe  that  the  enact- 
ments of  heaven  are  to  be  subjected  to  principles  of  interpre- 
tation, that  would  reduce  to  wreck  and  nonsense  the  plainest 
laws  of  the  land. 


DISCIPLES     OF    BALFOUR.  195 

Again,  the  true  Balfourean  must  believe,  that  any  quotations 
brought  from  the  writings  of  any  believer  in  future  punish- 
ment to  sustain  any  of  the  parts  of  Mr.  B.'s  system,  are  good 
and  sufficient  reasons  for  believing  in  the  soundness  of  those 
parts.  If  among  all  that  has  been  said  by  such  a  diffuse  and 
fanciful  writer  as  Adam  Clark,  or  among  all  the  wild  asser- 
tions of  Parkhurst,  a  name  of  no  authority,  an  interpretation  of 
a  passage  can  be  found  that  favors  his  scheme,  it  is  the  prac- 
tice of  Mr.  B.  to  bring  it  forward,  as  if  we  were  bound  to  re- 
ceive it  as  inspired  because  it  came  from  a  believer  in  future 
punishment.  No  small  part  of  Mr.  B.'s  books  consist  of  quo- 
tations real  «nd  perverted,  from  the  Avritings  of  believers  in 
future  punishment,  with  a  design  to  make  out  that  we  must 
believe  this  and  that,  because  such  a  man  has  said  this  and 
that.  Mr.  W.  has  made  still  more  reliance  on  this  kind  of 
proof.  And  recently  I  have  seen  a  notice  in  his  paper,  com- 
mending a  forth  coming  work,  which  consisted  entirely  of  com- 
Dilations  of  such  a  sort,  from  such  a  class  of  works.  So  that 
we  are  to  understand  that  this  is  a  favorite  method  of  proof 
with  them.  So  then  I  am  called  upon  to  believe  that  as  soon  as 
all  the  parts  of  Mr.  B.'s  system  can  be  made  out  from  collections 
of  all  the  foolish  and  erroneous  interpretations,  yea,  from  the 
scrapings  of  the  nails  of  the  thousands  of  orthodox  writers,  I 
am  bound  to  receive  them  as  the  revelation  from  God.  How- 
would  Universalism  be  able  to  stand  before  such  methods  of 
argumentation  ?  Suppose  every  opinion  that  was  ever  uttered 
by  a  man  bearing  the  name  of  Universalist  adverse  to  the 
views  of  Mr.  B.  were  brought  forward  as  good  and  sufficient 
reasons  for  disbelieving  his  system,  how  much  of  that  system 
would  be  left  .^  And  yet  Mr.  B.  supposes  that  what  the  learn- 
ed Adam  Clark  has  said  in  his  wildest  moods,  no  believer  in 
future  punishment  is  at  liberty  to  gainsay.  The  admission  of 
such  a  principle  is  not  the  least  of  the  exorbitant  requirements 
of  the  system  before  us. 

Again,  before  I  can  subscribe  to  the  assertions  and  com- 
ments of  this  author,  I  must  discredit  the  testimony  of  my  own 
eyes,  with  regard  to  authorities  on  many  essential  points.     I 


196  CREDULITY    OF    THE 

must  for  instance  believe  that  it  is  "  universally  alloived,'"  that 
the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth,  spoken  of  2  Peter  3:  13, 
refer  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  in  this  world,  and  not  any  thing 
after  death,  when  every  author  that  I  read  on  the  subject; 
such  as  Scott,  Dwight,  Chalmers,  Rosenmeiiller,  Storr  and 
Fuller,  refer  the  passage  to  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth, 
which  are  to  emerge  from  the  ashes  of  the  present  system.  So 
of  the  passages  in  the  Apocalypse,  that  speak  of  the  wicked 
being  tormented  forever  and  ever,  I  must  believe  that  "no 
well  informed  man  urges  them  as  proof  of  eternal  punishment," 
when  I  find  writers  as  well  informed  as  Edwards,  Saurin, 
Scott,  Dwight,  Rosenmiiller  and  Stuart,  involved  inrthe  alleged 
absurdity.  I  must  furthermore  believe  that  Mr.  B.  has  exam- 
ined in  a  given  essay,  all  the  passages  which  are  supposed  to 
teach  a  retribution  after  death,  when  he  has  passed  in  silence 
the  very  passage  whose  language  is  of  all  the  most  full  and 
unequivocal,  i.  e.  "  I  saw  the  dead  small  and  great  stand  be- 
fore God,&c.''  I  must  believe  that  the  word  d  aim  on  which  oc- 
curs in  scores  of  passages,  "  is  well  known  to  have  no  refer- 
ence to  that  being  which  christians  call  the  devil,"  and  that  all 
these  passages  are  so  irrelevant  to  the  question  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  devil,  that  they  need  no  consideration  by  him  who 
labors  at  disproof,  though  many  of  them  are  much  relied  on 
for  proof.  I  must  also  believe  that  when  he  offers  to  bring 
under  examination  all  the  passages  which  are  supposed  to 
teach  the  separate  conscious  existence  of  the  soul  after  death, 
and  then  leaves  two  of  the  most  material  passages  out  of  his 
discussion  of  that  subject,  and  then  introduces  them  in  anoth- 
er place  incidentally  but  briefly,  noticing  their  bearing  on  the 
first  question  just  to  save  appearances, — I  must  believe  that 
such  a  method  of  breaking  the  force  of  scripture  testimony, 
comports  with  fair  and  ingenuous  reasoning,  and  with  a  proper 
treatment  of  the  word  of  God. 

This  list  of  indigestible  matter,  might  be  much  more  extend- 
ed, but  this  will  serve  as  a  specimen.  The  faith  that  can  re- 
ceive all  this  has  digestive  organs  more  powerful,  than  those 
of  the  ostrich.      The  rational  mind  that  can  call  these  things 


DISCIPLES     OF    BALFOUR.  197 

reasonable,  when  distinctly  set  before  it,  or  that  can  read  with 
approbation  works  in  which  such  things  appear,  and  not  dis- 
cover any  thing  out  of  the  way,  must  be  subject  to  an  alarm- 
ing obliquity  of  moral  vision.  The  fact  that  these  books  are 
read  as  oracles  by  men  of  some  intelligence,  goes  to  prove 
what  a  wreck  can  be  made  of  the  mind,  of  the  habits  of  moral 
perception,  and  of  the  moral  sentiments,  by  pursuing  the  dan- 
gerous enterprise  of  wresting  the  Scriptures  into  coincidence 
with  depraved  desire. 

17 


CHAPTER  XII. 

MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS    OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT. 

I  PROPOSE  in  this  chapter  to  adduce  some  disconnected  and 
independent  considerations,  in  proof  of  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked,  in  the  future  world,  such  as  it  was  not  in  my  way  es- 
pecially to  notice  in  any  of  the  preceding  chapters. 

Conduct  has,  in  many  respects,  a  language  more  intelligible 
and  impressive  than  words,  written  or  spoken.  And  the  con- 
duct of  such  a  man  as  Paul,  is  capable  of  throwing  much  light 
on  this  subject.  It  is  a  proper  subject  of  enquiry,  whether  the 
conduct  of  Paul  harmonizes  with  the  notion  that  universal  sal- 
vation was  the  gospel  which  he  spent  his  life  in  promulgating. 
And  fortunately  we  have  not  only  the  history  of  Paul's  con- 
duct in  the  ministry,  but  the  express  reasons  assigned  for  that 
conduct  in  various  particulars.  So  that  both  his  conduct  and 
the  reasons  therefor  assigned  by  himself,  mutually  confirm 
the  testimony  of  each  other,  as  to  the  real  sentiments  of  his 
heart.  In  one  instance  he  gives  us  a  reason  for  his  conduct  in 
this  shape — Knowing  therefore  the  terror  of  the  Lord  we  per- 
suade men,  2  Cor.  5:  11.  Here  we  learn  that  the  apprehen- 
sion he  had  of  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  was  the  cause  which  im- 
pelled him  to  such  efforts  as  he  made  in  persuading  men. 
Now  let  us  look  at  this  matter  a  moment. — Here  was  one  of 
the  most  valuable  of  lives,  with  great  exciusiveness  of  purpose, 
and  with  strenuousness  unexampled,  devoted  to  the  business 
of  persuading  men.  Prospects  of  worldly  distinction  had  been 
relinquished,  mental  endowments  and  advantages  of  rank  and 
influence,  second  to  those  of  few,  were  counted  as  dross  and 
as  dung — the  favor  of  the  great  ones  of  the  world,  was  ex- 
changed for  their  frowns, — poverty,  perils,  persecutions  and 
toils  unceasing,  were  encountered  in  the  business  of  persuad- 


MISCELLANEOUS     PROOFS,  &C.  199 

ing  men.     Such  singleness  of  aim,  such  ceaseless  driving  to- 
wards one  point,  such  throwing  of  the   whole   soul  into  the 
enterprise    undertaken,  has  rarely    been    Avitnessed.       Now 
what  does  the   man  mean  by  all  this  ?     W-hat  is  the  mighty 
principle  of  conduct  like  this — what  the  commanding  motive 
that  sways  the  eneigies  of  such  a  mihd  in  subserviency  to  the 
single    purpose   of  persuading  men  to  embrace  his  gospel  ? 
This  is  his  answer.     Knowing  therefore  the  terror  of  the  Lord 
we  persuade  men.      Do  you  say  that  the  terror  of  the  Lord 
means  some  evil  to  be  suffered  in  this  life  by  those  who  rejec- 
ted his  persuasions  ?      The  context  shows  that  a  terror  to  be 
revealed  at  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  is  meant.     For  v/e 
must  all  appear  before   the  judgment  seat  of  Christ;  that  eve- 
ry one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body,  according  to 
that  he  hath  done,  Avhether  it  be  good  or  bad.     Knowing  there- 
fore the  terror,  &c.     But  waiving  this,  suppose  that  the  terror 
of  the  Lord  here  r£fer3  to  nothing  more  than  judgments  inflic- 
ted in  this  world  upon  those  who  did  not  embrace  the  gospel 
Then    we  have  God's   apostle  exhausting    his    life,  through 
hardships  beyond  what  the  greatest  sinners  under  any  judg- 
ments of  God  felt  in  this  life,  often  endure,  to  persuade  men 
away  from  Avh at ? — from   the   unhappiness.  of  an  .imconvert- 
ed  state,  and  from  some  possible  sufferings,  that  might  come 
upon  them  if  they  did  not  repent — and  to  persuade  them  to  en- 
counter the  unparalleled  teniporal  calamities,  that  were  the  in- 
evitable lot  of  the  christian.      We  have  then  this  wise  apos- 
tle, laboring  to  persuade  men  to  avoid  the  temporal  calamities 
of  the  wicked,  for  the  more  sure  and  severe  calamities  of  the 
godly.     We  have  a  Paul  braving  the  teiTors  of  a  hostile  world, 
to  induce  men  to  exchange  the  less  for  the  greater  evil.     We 
have  him  ready  to  go  to  prison  and  to  death,— to  be  exposed 
to  wild  beasts  at  Ephesus,  to  face  the  sword  of  Cesar  and  the 
dungeon  of  Nero,  to  persuade  men  away  from  the  ease  and  se- 
curity of  the  enemies  of  the  gospel  into  the  dangers  and  per- 
secutions allotted  to  those  who  in  such  days  would  live  godly 
in  Christ  Jesus.     Is   not  this  magnifying  his  benevolence  at 
the  expense  of  his  reason  ?     And  on  this  hypothesis  we  need 


200  MISCELLANEOUS     PROOFS 

not  wonder  that  his  work  of  persuasion  was  so  difticult.  Per- 
suasion in  that  case  would  have  been  a  miracle,  if  Paul  had 
told  the  world  in  the  outset,  that  neither  those  who  receiv- 
ed nor  those  who. rejected  his  message  had  anything  to  fear  af- 
ter death,  and  that  the  question  of  rejecting  or  receiving,  was 
only  one  of  securing  the  most  happiness  in  this  life,  none  but 
maniacs  would  ever  have  been  persuaded  by  him.  For  all  the 
terrors  of  a  world  in  arras,  a  world  influenced  by  sevenfold  hos- 
tility to  the 'gospel  were  against  him,  and  such  arguments  had 
greater  persuasive  force  than  any  found  in  such  a  gospel  as 
his  would  have  been.  The  terror  was  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question.  It  was  the  receiving  and  not  the  rejecting  of  the  gos- 
pel, which  exposed  a  man  to  temporal  dangers.  Really,  if  Paul 
employed  himself  in  persuading  men  that  the  easiest  and  most 
safe  and  comfortable  way  of  spending  this  mortal  life,  was  in 
a  course  of  christian  duties,  when  duty  led  to  the  rack  and  the 
stake,  he  had  a  work  before  him.  If  that  Avere  fact,  the  text 
above  quoted  might  be  paraphrased  after  this  sort — Knowing 
the  terror  of  the  Lord,  i.  e.  the  terrors  of  enjoying  unmolested 
the  favor  of  the  world,  and  of  the  powers  that  be,  we  persuade 
men  to  the  safer  and  happier  course  of  life,  which  confers 
bonds,  imprisonments,  and  the  privilege  of  being  hunted  like 
wild  beasts,  and  the  constant  expectation  of  a  violent  death, 
overbalanced  by  no  prospect  of  a  reward  in  the  future  life. 

On  another  occasion,  giving  explanations  of  the  reasons  of 
his  conduct,  he  says,  that  he  was  made  all  things  to  all  men, 
that  he  might  by  all  means  save  some.  But  save  some  from 
what  ? — from  trouble  in  this  life.  Were  his  converts  wont  to 
experience  that  kind  of  salvation  ?  Did  he  expect  they  would  ? 
Did  he  not  rather  tell  them  that  all  who  will  live  godly  in  Christ 
Jesus  must  suffer  persecution?  From  what  else  then,  did  he 
save  some,  than  the  perdition  beyond  the  grave  ?  Thus  the 
conduct  of  Paul  as  interpreted  by  himself,  is  every  way  at  war 
with  the  idea  of  no  punishment  in  the  world  to  come  ?  If  he 
was  laboring  to  save  men  from  hell,  conscious  of  standing  be- 
tween a  dying  world  and  an  undone  eternity,  his  whole  con- 
duct was  rational  and  consistent,  having  a  fit  proportion  be- 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  201 

tween  the  amount  of  bis  exertions  and  the  vastness  of  his  ob- 
ject. On  the  other  hypothesis,  his  whole  history  is  a  history 
of  quixotic  adventures. 

Suppose  Paul  had  actually  devoted  his  life  to  the  spread  of 
the  gospel,  that  held  out  universal  immunity  from  punishment 
beyond  the  grave.  How  different  would  have  been  the  course 
of  his  life,  and  preaching?  Those  who  preach  such  a  gospel 
now,  do  it  with  some  consistency.  Their  leading  doctrine  is 
foremost  in  all  ^heir  preaching.  To  convince  men  that  hell  is 
a  chimera,  and  heaven  the  sure  portion  of  the  sinner  and  the 
saint — that  whatever  distinctions  are  here  made  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked,  between  him  that  serveth  God  and 
him  that  serveth  him  not,  will  be  obliterated  by  the  hand  of 
death, — that  sin  and  holiness  are  tending  to  one  result, — that 
both  the  river  of  life  and  the  river  of  death  that  pour  through 
this  world,  are  at  last  to  disembogue  into  the  same  ocean  of 
eternal  glory,  are  the  points,  towards  which  their  main  labors 
are  directed.  "  Heaven  for  all  and  hell  for  none"  are  doctrines, 
the  absence  of  which  in  any  universalist  sermon  would  be 
deemed  unpardonable.  But  was  Paul  in  this  sense  a  univer- 
salist preacher  ?  Was  he  so  anxious  to  disburden  the  sinner's 
conscience  of  every  fear  of  hell  ?  Were  all  the  energies  of 
his  soul  bent  to  the  purpose  of  persuading  the  world,  that  eve- 
ry course  of  sin  was  sure  to  end  in  heaven  ?  Was  he  all  careful 
to  make  it  appear  that  the  dread  damnation  of  which  he  some- 
times spoke,  meant  nothing  more  than  temporal  evils  ?  When 
in  the  presence  of  Felix,  he  reasoned  of  righteousness,  tem- 
perance, and  judgment  to  come,  did  he  carry  the  idea  that 
this  judgment  to  comQ,  was  only  some  unpleasant  results  of 
man's  irregularities  of  life  experienced  in  this  world?  Was 
this  the  doctrine  that  made  the  judge  on  the  bench  tremble  be- 
fore the  prisoner  at  the  bar?  And  when  he  thundered  in  the 
Grecian  senate,  and  was  hissed  firom  the  floor  because  he  came 
down  uponthem  with  overbearing  demonstrations  of  the  resur- 
rection, think  you  that  the  Senators  were  so  offended  be- 
cause he  did,  or  because  he  did  not  mention  the  resurrection 
to  damnation  ?  Every  way  the  life  of  Paul  is  a  standing  re- 
17* 


202  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

futation  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Universalists.  This  source 
of  proof  is  capable  of  being  advantageously  expanded,  but  I 
will  not  pursue  it  further. 

Again  I  consider  all  the  earliest  warnings  in  Sciiptvre  against 
heresy  and  the  adoption  of  ruinous  doctrines  as  virtual  rejuta- 
tions  of  Universalism — inasmuch  as  if  that  system  be  true,  no 
doctrines  can  be  ruinous.  There  is  such  a  thing  frequently 
spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures  as  heresy.  2  Peter  2:  1,  Even  as 
there  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  privily  shall  bring 
in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them, 
and  shall  bring  upon  themselves  swift  destruction.  In  Gal.  5: 
20.  Heresies  are  set  down  in  a  list  of  the  "  works  of  the  flesh," 
and  in  company  with  such  things  as  "  witchcraft,  idolatry,  mur- 
ders, drunkenness,"  &c.  In  Titus  3:  10,  A  man  that  is  a  her- 
etic is  represented  as  one  who  should  be  excluded  from  the 
communion  of  christians.  In  2  Peter  3:  IG,  those  who  wrest 
the  Scriptures  are  said  to  do  it  to  their  own  destruction.  In 
Gal.  1:  8,  a  curse  is  pronounced  on  those  who  should  bring  a 
different  gospel  than  that  preached  by  Paul ;  as  though  here- 
sy were  a  serious  matter.  Though  we  or  an  angel  from  hea- 
ven preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you,  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  Jude  exhorts  to  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  against 
those  Avho  have  crept  in  unawares,  ungodly  men,  ^urnrng- /Ae 
grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness.  Now  I  am  not  inclined  to  as- 
sert that  Universalism  is  the  only  and  the  specific  error  on 
which  the  writers  in  all  these  cases  had  their  eye.  But  I  would 
here  ask  two  or  three  questions.  In  the  first  place,  is  there 
one  system  of  religious  error,  has  there  ever  been  one,  the  be- 
lief of  which  is  more  fatal  to  man's  immortal  interests,  than 
Uuiversalism,  if  tlTat  be  erroneous  ?  This  question  answers  it- 
self: there  can  be  but  one  opinion  about  it.  If  a  man  believes 
theiG  is  no  hell,  he  will,  unless  all  the  laws  of  mind  are  rever- 
sed in  his  case,  shape  his  heart  and  conduct  according  to  that 
belief— and  neglect  God's  appointed  means  of  escaping  eter- 
nal perdition.  It  is  as  true  as  that  there  is  a  hell,  that  he  that 
believeth  not— bclieveth  not  what  ?— the  great  facts  revealed 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  203 

in  the  gospel,  the  perdition  of  the  wicked  among  the  rest — shall 
be  damned.  If  any  wresting  of  the  Scriptures  can  be  to  a  man's 
destruction, — if  any  strong  delusion  and  believing  a  lie  is  a 
prelude  to  damnation,  the  delusion  of  the  Universalist  surely 
must  have  that  character. 

If  this  be  admitted,  I  ask  in  the  second  place,  is  there  not 
ground  for  all  the  warnings  against  heresy  which  appear  in 
scripture,  in  the  nature  and  tendency  of  this  one  system,  if  it 
be  an  erroneous  system  ?  All  the  warnings  against  the  receiv- 
ing of  erroneous  doctrines,  and  all  the  earnestness  and  solem- 
nity with  Avhich  they  are  put  forth  have  a  solid  basis,  if  the  em- 
brace of  that  system  draws  after  it  a  train  of  consequences  so 
tremendous.  If  there  be  an  eternal  hell,  and  the  not  believing 
of  the  truth  be  the  highway  towards  it,  all  the  strenuousness 
with  which  apostles  insisted  on  the  belief  of  the  truth,  and  the 
avoidance  of  heresy,  was  the  proper  dictate  of  Christian  benev- 
olence. But  if  there  were  no  such  perdition  the  apostles  were 
beyond  the  occasion  when  they  so  exhorted  men  to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith — in  levelling  their  curse  at  even  the 
angel  from  heaven  who  should  bring  another  gospel.  If  the 
most  false  and  pernicious  doctrines  that  man  or  even  the  an- 
gel of  the  bottomless  pit  ever  put  forth,  are  limited  in  their 
mischiefs  to  this  world,  there  is  no  occasion  for  such  flaming 
reprobation  of  them.  If  universalism  be  the  truth  there  arc 
no  doctrines  further  from  the  truth,  than  those  in  this  commu- 
nity called  orthodox.  But  let  the  most  bigotted  Universalist 
take  the  arithmetic  of  the  evils  which  flow  from  orthodoxy,  and 
tell  how  much  is  lost  in  respect  to  individual  and  public  happi- 
ness, and  how  much  evil  is  brought  in  by  the  spread  of  so  dam- 
nable a  heresy  as  these  must  be  in  his  esteem — how  much  the 
force  of  conscience  is  abated,  by  the  expectation  of  a  future 
judgment,  how  much  licentiousness  is  gendered,  by  perpetual- 
ly thundering  in  the  ears  of  men,  that  the  unbelieving  and 
abominable  of  every  class,  shall  have  their  part  in  a  lake  which 
burns  with  fire  and  brimstone— let  him  tell  how  orthodoxy  weak- 
ens men's  attachments  to  reading  and  studying  the  word  of 
God,  abates  the  religious  zeal  of  men,  dries  up  the  fountains 


204  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

of  public  charities — let  him  tell  how  much  more  corrupt  in  mor- 
als are  Orthodox  than  Univefsalist  communities, — let  him  re- 
count the  names  of  every  apostate  or  impostor,  that  has  had  a 
place  in  the  church  from  Judas  down  to  the  last  silenced  min- 
ister, and  hold  them  up  as  the  pure  specimens  of  orthodox  char- 
acter, and  the  pure  results  of  orthodox  doctrines.  In  short 
make  the  difference  as  wide  as  you  can,  the  advantage  in  fa- 
vor of  universalism  as  great  as  you  can,  and  hold  them  up  and 
let  any  man  of  common  sense  say  if  he  dare,  that  these  ad- 
vantages were  valued  so  highly  by  the  apostles  that  they  stig- 
matized the  opposite  doctrines  as  damnable  heresies,  as  wrest- 
ing the  scriptures  to  meii's  own  destruction,  a  strong  delusion, 
preparing  the  way  to  damnation.  Who  can  look  at  facts  as 
they  are,  and  claim  for  universalism  any  advantages  over  other 
systems  as  to  results  seen  in  this  world,  especially  as  to  holi- 
ness or  happiness,  which  would  justify  such  emphasis  of  denun- 
ciation of  opposite  doctrines  ?  The  sum  of  the  whole  is  this — 
the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are  such  that  the  doctrines  opposed 
to  them  are  ruinous  and  destructive  to  men.  But  the  doctrines 
opposed  to  Universalists  have  no  such  destructive  tendency, 
even  allowing  the  truth  of  Universalism.  Therefore  Univer- 
sali^ml  cannot  be  the  gospel  system. 

Another  fact  v/hich  has  a  serious  bearing  on  the  question 
before  us,  is,  that  while  many  men  have  been  known  to  re- 
nounce Universalism  on  a  dying  bed,  the  instance  never  was 
known  of  one  giving  up  abelief  of  future  punishment  in  a  dy- 
ing hour.  This  proof  is  not  relied  on  as  of  equal  force  with 
evidence  from  the  bible,  and  yet  it  is  worth  considering  in 
connexion  with  this  evidence.  With  regard  to  the  fact  I  think 
there  is  no  mistake.  I  do  not  say  that  all  Universalists  find 
their  foundations  fail  them  in  the  near  prospect  of  death.  1  know 
there  are  those  who  are  given  up  to  believe  a  lie,  those  of 
course  who  really  believe  it,  and  believe  till  the  light  of  the 
world  to  come  dispels  their  delusion.  And  suppose  we  admit 
that  a  great  majority  of  Universalists,  find  their  faith  firm  in  u 
dying  hour,  it  will  not  be  disputed  that  there  are  frequent 
cases  of  those,  who  through  life  have  been  confident  and  as- 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  205 

sured,  that  there  was  no  punishment  after  death,  who  have 
been  deserted  by  all  this  confidence,  when  death  approached, 
and  left  to  a  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment.  This  fact 
might  be  attested  by  a  thousand  witnesses.  Then  the  univer- 
salist  is  challenged  to  point  us  to  one  instance  of  a  man,  who 
lived  all  his  days  in  the  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  future  punish- 
ment till  his  dying  scene  arrived,  and  then  was  convinced  and 
avoided  his  conviction  that  he  had  been  deceived.  I  think  I 
am  warranted  in  assuming  thatsnch  cases  do  not  occur.  And 
if  so,  here  is  a  serious  fact  which  the  Universalist  is  interested 
to  explain.  How  happens  it  that  in  that  honest  hour  when 
real  and  apparent  are  the  same,  that  the  conscience  so  often 
makes  a  shift  from  the  one  position  but  never  from  the  other. 
If  you  resolve  the  fact  that  Universalists  abandon  their  ground 
in  a  dying  hour  to  the  fickleness  of  the  human  mind,  why 
should  not  that  cause  equally  lead  to  a  change  in  case  of  the 
others  ?  Do  you  say  those  Universalists  who  renounce  their 
faith  in  the  hour  of  death  never  really  embraced  it  ?  Well,  but 
are  there  not  instances  of  those  who  pretend  to  believe  in  fu- 
ture punishment  without  really  believing  it,  and  why  do  not 
they  confess  their  hypocrisy  also,  in  the  hour  of  death  ?  I  know 
of  no  satisfactory  solution  of  this  fact,  consistent  with  the 
truth  of  Universalism. 

Again,  Universalism  cannot  be  true,  because  it  goes  to  in- 
validate the  divine  threatenings.  This  it  does  in  two  ways. 
First  by  adopting  a  system  of  interpretation  which  applies  many 
of  the  most  impressive  comminations  which  appear  in  the 
bible  to  the  men  of  one  age  and  nation,  and  excluding  them 
from  all  bearings  upon  the  rest  of  the  world.  Most  of  the  ex- 
pressions in  the  New  Testament  in  the  shape  of  threatenings, 
however  general  may  be  the  subject,  and  extensive  the  ground 
and  reason  of  the  threatening,  are  made  to  point  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  This  is  the  chorus  to  every  song.  Of 
course  so  much  of  the  bible  is  divested  of  its  bearings  upon  us. 
And  then  in  the  second  place  those  threatenings  which  are 
admitted  to  be  addressed  to  all  mankind,  such  as  "  the  soul 


206  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

that  sinneth  it  shall  die,"  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  contin- 
ueth  not  in  all  things  v/ritten  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do 
them" — and  others  of  like  import  are  reduced  to  solemn  tri- 
fling. Now  suppose  the  penalty  here  intended  to  be  nothing 
more  than  is  made  of  it  in  this  life.  It  is  nothing  more  of 
course  than  every  sinner  suffers  in  this  life.  For  it  is  a  curse 
or  dying  to  which  every  soul  sinning  is  subject.  Pardon  here 
is  out  of  the  question;  for  we  speak  of  those  living  in  their 
sins.  Now  by  all  these  threatenings  couched  in  such  gener- 
al language,  no  more  is  meant  than  the  unhappiness  v/hich 
any  or  all  sinners  are  seen  to  feel,  as  the  result  of  their  sins  in 
this  life.  Go  then  and  inform  a  sinning  world,  that  God  moans 
no  more  by  that  language  so  often  repeated  with  such  awful 
emphasis,  than  that  if  sinners  continue  to  sin  they  shall  be  just 
as  unhappy  as  they  are.  Is  there  auy  thing  in  the  threaten- 
ings so  construed  to  take  hold  of  the  fears  of  men,  and  operate 
as  a  check  on  their  perverse  passions  ?  Could  a  God  of  infi- 
nite wisdom  be  supposed  to  rely  on  such  threatenings  to  com- 
mand respect  for  his  laws  ?  God  says  the  soul  that  sinneth  it 
shall  die.  The  sinner  asks, — and  shall  not  others  also  ?  Do  not 
all  men  die  ?  What  death  shall  the  sinner  die  that  others  do 
not?  The  Universalist  answers  he  shall  be  deprived  of  the 
happiness  of  spiritual  life,  the  happiness  of  the  christian.  If 
that  is  all,  replies  the  sinner,  I  shall  not  be  much  disturbed,  it 
is  a  happiness  that  I  never  ardently  aspired  after,  and  the  loss 
of  which  will  little  diminish  my  present  comforts.  Take  up 
this  threatening  in  this  sense,  and  rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of 
every  variety  of  sinners,  and  whose  fears  will  you  alarm,  or 
whose  conscience  will  you  excite  ?  Say  to  the  drunkard  if  he 
do  not  forsake  his  beastly  indulgences  he  will  lose  the  hap- 
piness of  the  christian  life,  will  the  announcement  break  on  his 
ears  with  the  force  of  a  divine  threatening  ?  Say  to  the  covet- 
ous, the  extortioner,  the  licentious,  that  if  he  do  not  repent  and 
forsake  his  sins  he  shall  die,  that  is,  he  shall  not  be  hoppy  in 
thenvay  that  christians  are  happy.  Assure  him  that  it  is  real- 
ly so,  by  quoting  a  thus  saith  the  Lord,  and  instead  of  having 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  207 

his  fears  awoke,  such  is  his  disgust  for  the  pleasures  of  the 
christian  life,  he  will  despise  the  God  who  undertakes  to  move 
his  conscience  by  considerations  so  inadequate. 

Nor  on  Universalist  ground  can  you  say  even  this.  If  to  be 
a  christian  is  to  be  a  Universalist,  and  the  christian's  joy  and 
peace  in  believing  consists  in  believing  Universalism,  I  see 
not  how  the  most  wicked  men  may  not  partake  of  it.  Nothing 
hinders  but  that  the  most  infamous  pirate,  can  be  a  firm  be- 
liever in  the  salvation  of  all  men !  And  Mr.  Whittemore  tells 
us  that  Universalism  is  most  likely  to  flourish  among  such  a 
class  of  men  as  publicans  and  harlots,  because  it  is  a  doctrine 
"  suited  to  their  tastes."  Now  it  is  not  true  on  his  own  hy- 
pothesis that  the  harlot,  if  she  do  not  repent,  will  lose  the  hap- 
piness of  the  christian  life,  provided  she  be  a  Universalist. 
Every  way  then,  Universalism  goes  to  invalidate  God's  threat- 
enings. 

Again,  Universalism  excludes  the  mercy  of  God.  Much  is 
said  in  the  gospel  about  the  pardon  of  sin.  .  I  have  found  it  im- 
possible to  ^ascertain  in  what  way  Universalism  makes  the 
mercy  of  God  contribute  to  the  salvation  of  men.  I  under- 
stand, that  it  is  essential  to  that  system,  that  all  men  are  pun- 
ished according  to  their  full  deserts  in  this  life. — And  if  so  it 
leaves  no  room  for  the  exercise  of  mercy.  The  state-prison- 
er, after  having  served  out  his  term  of  years,  does  not  count 
himself  pardoned  out  of  prison.  The  truth  is,  God's  law  orig- 
inally threatened  eternal  death  to  the  transgressor,  or  it  did 
not.  If  it  did,  it  would  not  be  unjust  for  him  to  inflict  eternal 
pains  upon  the  incorrigible;  for  it  would  not  be  right  to  threat- 
en what  would  be  unjust  to  inflict.  If  it  did,  it  is  a  principle 
of  divine  administration,  that  the  conduct  in  this  life  should  af- 
fect the  condition  in  the  future  life,  a  principle  which  would 
overturn  the  main  pillar  of  Universalism.  But  if  it  did  not,  sal- 
vation beyond  the  grave  is  no  act  of  mercy,  the  saving  of  a 
man  from  that  to  which  he  never  was  exposed,  the  remission  of 
a  penalty  never  deserved,  and  never  threatened,  is  no  mercy. 
Or  look  at  the  matter  in  another  light.  It  was  originally  de- 
signed that  man  should  be  made  answerable  in  the  future 


208  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

world  for  his  conduct  in  this,  or  it  was  not.     If  it  was  so  de- 
signed, why  is  he  not  still  so  answerable  ?     Surely  it  will  not 
be  pretended  that  Christ  has  made  himself  the  minister  of  sin, 
and  limited  the  extent  of  man's  accountability  for  it, — by  mak- 
ing sin  less  hateful«to  God  or  less  dreadful  in  its  consequences. 
But  if  it  was  not  originally  designed  that  man  should  be  made 
accountable  in  the  future  world,  it  M'ere  no  act  of  mercy  to  take 
to  heaven  the  most  guilty  and  abandoned  wretch  that  ever 
breathed.     Mercy  cannot  come  over  ground  that  accountabili- 
ty has  not  covered.     So  that  whatever  mercy  there  may  be  in 
the  gospel,  that  mercy  does  not  exerciseitself  according  to  the 
Universalist  hypothesis  in  saving  men  from  misery  in  the  world 
to  come.      I  see  not  how  the  inference  can  be  avoided,  that 
there  is  no  mercy  in  what  is  called  universal  salvation.     We 
will  then,  if  you  please,  take  it  as  a  settled  principle  of  Uni- 
versalism,  that  all  the  mercy  of  which  we  read  in  the  gospel, 
is  exercised  in  saving  men  from  deserved  temporal  calamities. 
The  Universalists  must  admit  that  this  mercy  is  represented 
as  great.      God  is  abundantly  represented  as  making  some- 
where, and  at  some  period  of  man's  existence,  great  displays 
of  his  mercy.     But  how  does  this  fact  tally  with  the  represen- 
tation, that  all  men  are  punished  in  this  life  to  the  full  amount 
of  their  guilt?     One  would  think  there  were  some  inconsisten- 
cy here.     In  one  breath  we  are  told  that  all  men  suffer  in  this 
world  all  they  deserve,  and  then  in  the  next  that  all  the  mercy 
of  God  spends  itself  upon  man  in  this  life.     You  will  ask  per- 
haps how  men  can  be  judged  all  according  to  their  works  in 
any  world,  and  yet  there  be  mercy  incase  of  those  who  are 
saved  ?  And  the  answer  is  at  hand.     First  among  the  works  of 
the  redeemed  is  the  work  of  faith  in  Christ,  which  is  the  indis- 
pensable condition  of  mercy  being  exercised  towards  them — ac- 
cording to  this  work  and  the  good  works  which  flow  from  this 
and  evidence  it  forth  as  genuine,  the  redeemed  are  judged, 
so  that  salvation  is  purely  an  exercise  of  mercy.     But  Univer- 
salism,  excluding  all  conditions  of  salvation,  provides  noway  in 
which  strict  justice  can  be  executed  on  all,  as  it  pretends  it 
will,  and  yet  great  mercy  shown  to  some. 

And  then,  if  all  the  mercy  of  God  is  confined  to  this  world, 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  209 

in  what  acts  of  providence  or  grace  does  it  show  itself?  Who 
are  they  that  have  attained  this  mercy  ?  And  how  does  the  fact 
of  one's  being  pardoned  affect  his  condition  ?  Wherein  con- 
sists the  blessedness  of  the  man,  Avhose  sin  is  forgiven  and 
whose  iniquity  is  covered?  Does  it  affect  his  mind  or  body, 
his  reputation  or  estate  ?  If  it  affects  his  mind,  pray  tell  me 
how  does  the  absence  of  pardon,  if  attended  by  no  consequen- 
ces beyond  the  grave,  and  if  death  is  sure  soon  to  serve  in  the 
stead  of  pardon,  seriously  disturb  the  peace  of  the  mind  ? — 
I  ask  again — If  all  God's  mercy  is  displayed  in  this  world,  and 
the  pardon  of  sin  displays  all  its  blessedness  here,  in  ivhat  facts 
does  that  blessedness  consist  ?  Is  it  credible  that  the  gospel 
should  say  so  much  about  pardon,  and  forgiveness,  and  so  little 
of  it  should  be  found  in  actual  existence  ?  The  pages  of  evan- 
gelical prophecy,  and  of  gospel  history  and  gospel  exhorta- 
tion, are  made  to  glow  with  descriptions  and  illustrations  of  a 
system  of  salvation,  contrived  to  declare  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  that  are  past.  A  vicari- 
ous sufferer,  a  divinely  furnished,  and  divine  victim,  stands 
forth  bowing  between  the  blows  of  heaven  and  earth — the 
bleeding  lamb  of  God  that  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  in- 
troducing a  great  salvation,  a  mysteriously  splendid  system  of 
mercy,  the  masterpiece  of  all  God's  works,  into  which  the  an- 
gels desire  to  look.  And  now  is  it  credible  that  this  broad  and 
lofty  plan  of  mercy,  works  no  results  but  what  are  seen  in 
any  advantages  which  the  righteous  enjoy  over  the  wicked  in 
this  world  ? 

But  perhaps  after  all,  the  Universalists  will  choose  to  be  un- 
derstood as  making  the  salvation  of  man  in  the  world  to  come, 
the  result  of  mercy.  Many  of  the  proof  texts  on  which  they 
place  much  reliance  in  support  of  their  notion  of  a  heaven  for 
all,  are  such  as  speak'  of  mercy — such  as  these — His  mercy 
endureth  forever, — His  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works. 
Here  is  an  assumption  that  universal  salvation  is  equivalent  to 
universal  mercy.  But  pray  tell  me,  if  man  was  never  exposed 
to  eternal  death,  if  he  never  was  under  condemnation  of  a  law 


18 


210  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

which,  threatened  eternal  death,  what  is  there  of  mercy  in  sav- 
ing him  from  such  a  death  ? 

Either  way  then,  I  am  warranted  to  conclude  that  Universal- 
ism  makes  no  adequate  use  of  God's  mercy,  and  to  set  in  array 
against  the  system  all  that  is  said  in  the  gospel,  about  the  for- 
giveness of  sin  and  the  provisions  for  it. 

Again,  Universalism  annihilates  all  conditions,  connected 
with  securing  eternal  life.  Assuming  that  the  state  of  men- in 
the  future  life,  is  not  at  all  affected  by  the  conduct  in  this  life, 
— that  there  is  no  judgment  beyond  the  grave,  it  reduces  to 
solemn  trifling  all  those  parts  of  Scripture,  which  directly  or  by 
implication,  make  the  performance  of  certain  conditions  need- 
ful to  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  To  rehearse  all  the  passages 
which  make  the  enjoyment  of  eternal  life  depend  on  certain 
conditions,  would  be  to  repeat  no  small  part  of  the  Bible.  I 
will  select  a  few  out  of  the  many.  Mark  16:  16.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned.  Here  salvation  is  offered  on  condition  of 
believing  !  and  that  not  a  salvation  from  Jerusalem's  destruc- 
tion, for  it  was  a  condition  to  be  proclaimed  to  all  the  world. 
Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creat- 
ure. He  that  believeth  [in  all  the  world]  shall  be  saved,  &c. 
Rom.  10:  9.  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Je- 
sus, and  shalt  believe  with  thy  heart  that  God  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For  with  the  heart  man  believ- 
eth unto  righteousness.  John  3: 36.  He  that  believeth  on  the 
Son  hath  everlasting  life,  and  he  that  believeth  not  on  the 
Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him. 
Now  if  the  unbelieving  are  equally  safe  with  the  believing, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  all  this  ?  Rev.  2:  11.  He  that  overcom- 
eth  shall  not  be  hurt  of  the  second  death, — implying  that  those 
that  do  not  overcome  shall  be  hurt  of  the  second  death.  Rev. 
2:  7.  To  him  that  overcometh  will  I  give  to  eat  of  the  tree  of 
life,  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  paradise  of  God, — meaning  if 
it  means  any  thing,  that  he  that  does  not  overcome  shall  not 
eat  of  the  tree  of  life.    Rev.  2:  17.  To  him  that  overcoraeth 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  211 

will  I  give  to  eat  of  the  hidden  manna.  Heb.  3:  14.  For  we  are 
made  partakers  with  Christ  if  we  hold  fast  the  beginning  of 
our  confidence  steadfast  unto  the  end.  These  passages  im- 
ply a  reward  of  perseverance  bestowed  at  the  end  of  life,  and 
of  course  do  not  consist  with  the  notion  that  the  Christian  has 
all  his  reward,  and  the  impenitent  all  his  loss  and  sufferings'in 
this  life. 

To  this  same  point  are  all  those  passages  which  speak  of 
heaven,  eternal  life,  &c.  as  the  reward  of  holiness.  Matt.  5: 
12.  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your  reioard  in 
heaven,  for  so  persecuted  they  the  prophets  which  were  before 
you.  If  the  condition  in  heaven  is  not  affected  by  the  conduct 
in  this  life,  why  speak  of  a  reward  in  heaven?  there  can  be  no 
such  thing.  Luke  6:  23.  Rejoice  ye  in  that  day  and  leap  for 
joy  ;  for  behold  your  reward  is  great  in  heaven.  I  Peter  4:  13. 
But  rejoice,  inasmuch  as  ye  are  made  partakers  of  Christ's  suf- 
ferings, that  when  his  glory  shall  be  revealed,  ye  may  be  glad 
also  v/ith  exceeding  joy.  In  the  following  also,  the  fact  of  re- 
wards and  punishments  beyond  the  grave  is  clearly  implied. 
Matt  10:  32.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  confess  me  before 
men,  him  will  I  also  confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in  hea- 
ven. But  whosoever  shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  al- 
so deny  before  my  father  which  is  in  heaven.  Mark  8:  38. 
Whosoever  therefore  shall  be  ashamed  of  me,  and  of  my  words 
in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation,  of  him  shall  the  Son 
of  Man  be  ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  his  Fa- 
ther, with  the  holy  angels.  Here  is  a  contrast  between  that 
generation  and  the  time  when  Christ  should  come  in  his  glory, 
showing  that  the  time  when  the  shame  should  settle  on  Christ's 
enemies,  was  after  that  generation  had  passed  away. 

To  the  same  point  essentially,  are  those  passages  which 
speak  of  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  salvation,  and  the  danger  of 
losing  it.  Matt.  7:  13.  Enter  ye  in  at  the  strait  gate,  for  wide 
is  the  gate,  and  broad  is  the  way  that  leadeth  to  destruction,' 
and  many  there  be  which  go  in  thereat.  Because  strait  is  the 
gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way,  that  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few 
there  be  that  find  it.     Here  are  two  ways  described,  the  one 


212  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

leading  to  life,  and  the  other  to  destruction.  But  the  Univer- 
salist  tells  us  that  life  here  means  spiritual,  and  not  eternal 
life  ;  and  death  means  the  suffering  which  sin  brings  along- 
with  it  in  this  life.  But  it  happens  that  this  strait  gate,  which 
can  mean  nothing  but  the  difficulties  of  a  holy  life,  is  that  which 
leadeth  imto  life.  And  the  broad  and  easy  way  of  the  sinner 
is  that  which  leadeth  unto  destruction,  and  not  tlie  destruction 
itself.  JNIatt.  7:  21.  Not  every  one  that  saith  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will 
of  my  father  which  is  in  heaven.  Many  will  say  unto  me  in 
that  day.  Lord,  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name, 
and  in  thy  name  have  cast  out  devils,  and  in  thy  name 
done  many  wonderful  works  ?  And  then  I  will  profess  unto 
them,  I  never  knew  you — Depart  from  me  ye  that  work  iniqui- 
ty. It  seems  then,  there  will  be  many  that  will  not  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven, — many  who  after  great  attainments,  and 
great  achievements  in  religious  life,  will  be  addressed  by  a — 
"  Depart  from  me."  But  suppose  the  phrase,  kingdom  of  God, 
is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  spiritual  life,  as  the  Universalist 
will  tell  us. — Then  we  have  hypocrites  earnestly  desiring  to 
be  christians  indeed,  but  forbidden  to  come  to  the  desired 
privilege.  And  we  have  them  saying,  as  Luke  gives  the  sto- 
ry,— Lord,  Lord,  open  unto  us.  Open  what. ^  The  kingdom^ 
the  privilege  of  being  real  christians.  But  when  were  hypo- 
crites so  earnest  to  come  to  spiritual  life,  and  when  did  the 
Lord  refuse  to  admi,t  them,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  been 
workers  of  iniquity?  Luke  13:  23.  Then  said  one  unto  him, 
Lord  are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate, — For  many  I  say  unto  you 
will  seek  to  enter  in  and  shall  not  be  able.  That  salvation  or 
admission  to  heaven,  is  the  end  towards  which  the  strait  gate 
leads,  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  remark  is  made,  in  answer 
to  the  question — Are  there  few  that  be  saved'?  The  man  did 
not  ask  whether  few  became  Christ's  followers,  for  he  had  no 
need  to  ask  it,  but  are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?  And  he  is 
told  that  many  will  seek  salvation,  and  shall  not  find  it.  1  Pe- 
ter 4:  18.  And  if  the  righteous  scarcely  be  saved,  where  shall 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  213 

the  ungodly  and  the  sinner  appear  ?  Here,  both  the  difficulty 
of  obtaining  salvation,  and  the  fact  that  the  ungodly  and  the 
sinner  do  not  obtain  it  are  set  forth. 

Equally  in  face  of  the  Universalist  hypothesis,  are  those  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  holy  life,  as  of  laying  up  treasure  in  hea- 
ven. Matt.  6:  19.  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon 
the  earth,  where  moth  and  rust  doth  corrupt,  and  where  thieves 
break  through  and  steal.  But  lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures 
in  heaven,  where  neither  moth  nor  rust  doth  corrupt.  Matt. 
19:  21,  Go  and  sell  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  and 
thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven.  Luke  12:  33.  Sell  that 
ye  have  and  give  alms  ;  provide  yourselves  bags  which  wax  not 
old,  a  treasure  in  the  heavens  that  faileth  not.  Luke  16:  9. 
And  I  say  unto  you,  make  to  yourselves  friends  of  the  mam- 
mon of  unrighteousness,  that  when  ye  fail  they  may  receive 
you  into  everlasting  habitations.  1  Tim.  6:  19.  Laying  up 
in  store  a  good  foundation  against  the  time  to  come,  that 
they  may  lay  hold  on  eternal  life.  Heb.  10:  34.  For  ye  had 
compassion  on  my  bonds,  and  took  joyfully  the  spoiling  of  your 
goods,  knowing  in  yourselves,  that  ye  have  in  heaven  a  better 
and  an  enduring  substance.  Cast  not  away  therefore  your  con- 
fidence, which  hath  great  recompence  of  reward.  1  Peter  1: 3. 
Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which 
according  to  his  abundant  mercy,  hath  begotten  us  again  unto 
a  lively  hope,  by  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  from 
the  dead,  to  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and 
that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven  for  you,  who  are  kept 
by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation.  And  verse 
7 — That  the  trial  of  your  faith  being  much  more  precious  than 
gold  which  perisheth,  may  be  found  unto  praise  and  honor  and 
glory  a.t  the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ.  Chap.  5:  4.  And  when 
the  Chief  Shepherd  shall  appear,  ye  shall  receive  a  crown  of 
glory  that  fadeth  not  away.  That  in  these  passages  a  holy 
life  is  represented  as  tending  to  secure  a  good  treasure  or  a 
crown  in  the  heavenly  world,  I  think  admits  of  no  question. 
All  this  amount  of  evidence  then,  goes  against  the  doctrine  of 


214  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

the  Universalists,  that  no  rewards  or  punishments  extend  into 
the  future  world. 

Equally  in  point  are  those  which  speak  of  the  end  of  a  godly 
and  an  ungodly  life.     Rom.  6:  22.  Ye  have  your  fruit  unto  ho- 
liness, and  your  end  everlasting  life.     For  the  wages  of  sin  is 
death,  but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.     Phil.  3:  19.  Whose  end  is  destruction.     Heb.  6;  8. 
Whose  end  is  to  be  hurned.     2  Cor.  11:  15.  Whose  end  is  ac- 
cording to  their  works.      Prov.  11:  7.    When  a  wicked  man 
dieth,  his  expectations  shall  perish. — 14:  32.   The  wicked  is 
driven  away  in  his  wickedness,  but  the  righteous  hath  hope  in 
his  death.     Job  27:  8.  For  what  is  the  hope  of  the  hypocrite, 
though  he  hath  gained,  when  God  taketh  away  his  soul?  Here 
there  is  a  great  difference  made  between  the  end  of  the  right- 
eous, and  of  the  wicked.     In  one  case  the  end  is  everlasting 
life,  and  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ.     And  in  the  other 
it  is  represented  as  death,  destruction,  perishing  of  the  expec- 
tation in  death,  burning,  and  hopelessness  in  the  taking  away 
of  the  soul.     And  if  the  career,  of  the  wicked  ends  in  this, 
there  can  be  no  eternal  glory  to  them  beyond  it.     Do  you  say 
these  expressions  do  not  mean  the  last,  the  absolutely  final 
state,  of  the  wicked  and  of  the  righteous  ?   Where  is  your  ev- 
idence ?   The  expression  is,  "  Having  your  fruit  unto  holiness, 
and  your  end  everlasting  life."     But  if  these  fail  of  convincing 
you  that  the  last  end  is  meant  we  will  quote  one  in  which  that 
is  expressly  said.     Numb.  23:  10.  Let  me  die  the  death  of  the 
righteous,  and  let  my  last  end  be  like  his.     Here  a  difference 
is  made  between  the  last  end  of  the  righteous  and  of  the 
•wicked. 

Equally  inconsistent  with  the  hope  that  all  will  be  saved  is 
that  class  of  passages,  which  speak  of  destruction  ivithout  mercy, 
James  2:  13.  For  he  shall  have  judgment  ivithout  mercy  that 
hath  showed  no  mercy.  See  how  this  is  at  total  variance  Avith 
the  scheme  of  the  Universalists.  They  tell  us  that  all  God's 
judgments  are  for  the  good  of  the  person  punished  ;  that  is 
that  men  have  no  judgments  but  what  are  in  mercy,  which  es- 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  215 

sentially  amounts  to  mercy  without  judgment,  where  God  says 
some  shall  have  judgment  without  mercy.      Prov.  29:  1.   He 
that  being  often  reproved,  hardeneth  his  neck,  shall  suddenly 
be  destroyed,  and  that  without  remedy.      Prov  6:  15.    There- 
fore shall  his  calamnity  come  suddenly  ;  suddenly  shall  he  be 
broken  without  remedy.     1  Thes.  5:  2.    For  yourselves  know 
perfectly,  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh  as  a  thief  in  the 
night.     For  when  they  shall  say  peace,  and  safety,  then  sud- 
den destruction  cometh  upon  them,  and  they  shall  not  escape. 
There  is  then  a  destruction  coming  upon  the  ungodly  which 
admits  of  no  escape  or  remedy.     It  must  then  be  an  infliction 
of  God's  anger  which  will  last  as  long  as  their  existence.   Har- 
monizing with  this  idea  is,  1  John  5:  16.    If  a  man  see  his 
brother  sin  a  sin  which  is  not  unto  death,  he  shall  ask  and  he 
6hail  give  him  life  for  a  sin  Avhich  is  not  unto  death.     There  is 
a  sin  unto  death.     I  do  not  say  he  shall  pray  for  it.     And  why 
not  pray  for  such,  if  their  salvation  be  possible,  nay  certain  ?  ■ 
Does  God  forbid  his  people  to  pray  for  those  whom  he  himself 
is  willing  to  receive  to  eternal  honor  ?    Heb.  10:  26.  For  if  we 
sin  wilfully,  after  that  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,  but  a  certain 
fearful  looking  for  of  judgment,  and  fiery  indignation,  which 
shall  devour  the  adversary.     If  there  be   no  more  sacrifice  for 
sin,  and  if  judgment  and  devouring  indignation  remain  for 
some,  salvation  of  course  is  excluded.      Nor  is  it  out  of  place 
here  to  introduce  what  Christ  said  of  Judas.      Mark  14:  21. 
Woe  to  that  man  by  whom  the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed.    Good 
were  it  for  that  man  if  he  never  had  been  born.     Now  on  the 
Universalist  hypothesis,  what  does  Judas  sufiier  which  made 
his  existence  on  the  whole  a  calamity  ?   Did  the  fe\v  hours  of 
remorse  and  the  pains  of  suicide,  overbalance  the  joys  of  the 
eternal  heaven,  to  which  his  violent  and  guilty  death  introduced 
him  ?  Had  his  whole  life  been  one  of  endurance  beyond  what 
mortal  ever  yet  endured,  it  would  not  have  been  an  atom  be- 
side eternal  weight  of  glory  in  heaven.     It  would  not  have 
been  good  for  him  not  to  have  been  born,  if  there  were  no  suf- 
fering for  him  after  death. 


216  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

Equally  decisive  are  those  which  represent  that  there  is  no 
change  of  character  from  sin  to  holiness  after  death,  as  Rev. 
22:  11,  12.  He  that  is  unjust  let  him  be  unjust  still,  and  he  that 
is  filthy  let  him  be  filthy  still,  and  he  that  is  righteous  let  him 
be  righteous  still,  and  he  that  is  holy  let  him  be  holy  still. 
And  behold  I  come  quickly,  and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to  give 
to  every  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be.  Date  this  sen- 
tence of  confirming  the  characters  of  men  when  you  will,  it 
excludes  universal  holiness  and  salvation.  There  is  to  be  a 
time  when  those  that  are  unjust  and  filthy  will  be  confirmed 
in  that  character  forever.  And  it  will  of  course  be  when  there 
are  some  to  possess  that  character.  And  as  there  can  be  no 
happiness  even  in  heaven  without  holiness,  such  unjust  and 
filthy  ones  cannot  be  saved.  Prov.  14:  32.  The  wicked  is 
driven  away  in  his  wickedness,  but  the  righteous  hath  hope  in 
his  death.  This  passage  already  quoted  for  another  purpose 
is  proof  also  that  the  wicked  is  confirmed  in  his  wicked  char- 
actor,  and  of  course  in  hopelessness  of  salvation  at  death. 
Dan.  12:  10.  Many  shall  be  purified,  and  made  white,  and  tri- 
ed ;  but  the  wicked  shall  do  wickedly ;  and  none  of  the  wicked 
shall  understand.  John  8:  21.  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them, 
again  I  go  my  way,  and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  in  your 
sins,  and  whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come.  Dying  in  sins  is  here 
made  an  equivalent  to  a  complete  hindrance  to  coming  where 
Christ  is,  i.  e.  to  heaven,  as  he  himself  explains  it  in  the  con- 
text. 

Those  passages  also  which  confine  the  portion  and  enjoy- 
ment of  the  wicked  to  this  life,  are  decidedly  subversive  of  the 
Universalist  theory.  Psalms  17:  14.  From  the  men  of  the 
world  who  have  their  portion  in  this  life, — implying  that  there 
is  no  portion  for  them  in  the  future  life.  Psalms  4:  9.  Bo  not 
thou  afraid  when  one  is  made  rich,  when  the  glory  of  his  house 
is  increased,  for  when  he  dieth  he  shall  carry  nothing  away, 
his  glory  shall  not  descend  after  him,  though  while  he  lived  he 
blessed  his  soul.  He  shall  go  to  the  generation  of  his  fathers  ; 
they  shall  never  see  light.  73:  3 — 17.  I  was  envious  at  the 
foolish  when  I  saw  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked. Until  I 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  217 

went  into  the  sanctuary  of  God,  then  understood  I  their  end. 
Thou  castedst  them  down  into  destruction.  And  this  destruc- 
tion was  not  the  mere  death  of  the  body.  For  the  mystery  of 
which  the  Psalmist  had  been  speaking  was,  that  the  wicked 
both  lived  so  prosperously,  and  died  so  quietly, — "there  were 
no  bands  in  their  death.^^  Their  being  consumed  with  terrors, 
and  cast  down  to  destruction,  and  the  glad  reverse  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  righteous,  must  be  a  something  which  takes  place 
after  death.  On  this  verse  the  writer  fixes  his  eye,  and  winds 
up  the  Psalm  with, — Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  thy  counsel, 
and  afterwards  receive  me  to  glory.  My  flesh  and  my  heart 
faileth,  but  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart  and  my  portion 
forever-  Thus  the  contrast  between  the  portion  of  the  right- 
eous, and  the  portion  of  the  wicked,  is  complete.  The  one  ends 
with  this  life,  and  the  other  is  a  portion  forever.  Luke  12;  16. 
And  he  spoke  a  parable  unto  them  saying,  the  ground  of  a 
certain  rich  man,  brought  forth  plentifully.  And  he  thought 
within  himself,  saying,  what  shall  I  do  because  I  have  no  room 
where  to  bestow  my  fruits ;  and  he  said  this  will  I  do,  I  will 
pull  down  my  barns  and  build  greater,  and  there  will  I  bestow 
all  my  fruits  and  my  goods.  And  I  will  say  to  my  soul,  soul, 
thou  hast  much  goods  laid  up  for  many  years,  take  thine  ease, 
eat,  drink  and  be  merry.  But  God  said  unto  him,  thou  fool, 
this  night  tliy  soul  shall  be  required  of  thee,  and  then  whose 
shall  these  things  be,  which  thou  hast  provided  ?  So  is  he  that 
layeth  up  treasures  for  himself,  and  is  not  rich  towards  God. 
But  if  Universalism  be  true,  wherein  was  that  man  a  fool,  for 
making  dependence  on  his  abundant  earthly  portion,  to  the 
neglect  of  being  rich  towards  God?  On  that  supposition  his 
heavenly  portion  was  just  as  sure,  and  abundant,  as  if  he  had 
been  ever  so  rich  towards  God.  Luke  16:  25.  But  Abram  said, 
son,  remember,  that  thou  in  thy  life  time  receivedst  thy  good 
things,  and  Lazarus  his  evil  things,  but  now  he  is  comforted, 
and  thou  art  tormented.  Luke  6:  24.  Woe  unto  you  that  are 
rich,  for  you  have  received  your  consolation  ;  implying  that 
there  is  no  more  consolation  for  them  hereafter.  If  there  be 
salvation  for  them  in  heaven,  it  is  infinitely  greater  than  all 


218  MISCELLANEOUS     PROOFS 

Other  consolations,  and  by  way  of  eminence  should  be  called 
their  consolation.  James  5:  5.  Ye  have  lived  in  pleasure  on 
the  earth  and  been  wanton,  ye  have  nourished  your  hearts  as 
in  the  day  of  slaughter.  Ye  have  condemned  and  killed  the 
just,  and  he  doth  not  resist  you.  Be  patient  therefore  breth- 
ren unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  Here  is  a  tremendous  im- 
plication of  punishment  coming-  upon  the  oppressor,  when  the 
Lord  shall  com.e — it  being  said  in  the  context  that  the  cries 
of  the  oppressed  had  gone  up  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of 
hosts — that  the  oppressed  had  heaped  treasure  together  for  the 
last  days,  that  their  riches  were  to  be  a  witness  against  them, 
they  were  bid  to  Aveep  and  howl  for  the  miseries  that  were 
coming  upon  them. 

Another  class  of  texts,  running  in  the  very  teeth  of  Univer- 
salism,  is  composed  of  those  which  speak  of  the  wicked  as  per- 
ishing, cast  away,  rejected,  burnt  as  chaff.  1  Cor.  1:  18.  The 
preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them  that  perish  foolishness,  but 
unto  us  who  are  saved  it  is  the  power  of  God,  2  Cor.  2:  15. 
For  we  are  unto  God  a  sweet  savor  of  Christ,  in  them  that  are 
saved,  and  in  them  that  perish.  Perishing  is  here  put  in  con- 
trast vvith  being  saved.  2  Peter  2:  12.  And  shall  utterly  pe?-- 
2s^  in  their  own  corruption.  Luke  9:  25.  For  what  is  a  man 
advantaged  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  himself  or  be 
a  cast  away  ?  1  Cor.  9:  27.  But  I  keep  under  my  body,  fand 
bring  it  into  subjection,  lest  when  I  have  preached  to  others 
I  myself  also  should  be  a  cast-away.  Heb.  G:  8.  That  which 
beareth  thorns  and  briars,  is  rejected.  Matt.  3:  12.  But  the 
chalf  he  will  burn  in  unquenchable  fire.  Matt.  43:  40.  As 
therefore  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burned  in  the  fire,  so  shall 
it  be  in  the  end  of  this  world.  The  Son  of  Man  shall  send  forth 
his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom,  all  things 
that  offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity,  and  shall  cast  them 
into  a  furnace  of  fire.  There  shall  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of 
teeth.  And  verse  47.  The  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  like  unto  a 
net,  that  was  cast  into  the  sea  and  gathered  of  every  kind, 
which  when  it  was  full  they  drew  to  the  shore,  and  sat  down 
and  gathered  the  good  into  vessels  and  cast  the  bad  away. 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  219 

So  shall  it  be  at  the  end  of  the  world.  The  angels  shall  come 
forth,  and  sever  the  wicked  from  among  the  just,  and  cast 
them  into  the  furnace  of  fire,  there  shall  be  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth.  Let  such  testimony  speak  for  itself.  If 
all  are.  finally  saved,  there  is  no  propriety  in  speaking  of  any 
as  lost,  perished,  cast  away,  rejected,  and  cast  at  the  end  of 
the  world  into  unquenchable  fire. 

To  these  may  be  added  those  passages  which  directly  or  in- 
directly express  an  exclusion  of  the  wicked  from  heaven. 
John  (Rev.  21)  after  describing  the  blessedness  of  the  New 
Jerusalem,  the  holy  city  coming  down  from  God  out  of  heaven, 
says — But  the  fearful  and  unbelieving,  and  the  abominable,  and 
murderers,  and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars  shall  have 
their  part  in  the  lake  which  burnetii  with  fire  and  brimstone, 
which  is  the  second  death.  Then  after  having  given  a  partic- 
ular description  of  the  city  and  its  glories,  he  adds,  and  there 
shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it,  any  thing  that  defileth,  neither 
whatsoever  worketh  abomination,  or  maketh  a  lie,  but  they 
which  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life.  Heb.  12:  14.  Fol- 
low peace  with  all  men,  and  holiness,  ivithout  tchich  no  man  can 
see  the  Lord.  Gal.  5:  19.  Now  the  works  of  the  flesh  are  man- 
ifest, which  are  these,  adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  las- 
civiousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulation, 
wrath,  strifes,  seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunken- 
ness, revellings,  and  such  like,  of  which  I  before  tell  you,  as  I 
have  also  told  you,  that  they  which  do  such  things,  shall  not 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  1  Cor.  6:  9.  Know  ye  not  that  the 
unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Be  not  de- 
ceived, neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  effeminate,  nor 
abusers  of  themselves  with  mankind,  nor  thieves,  nor  covetous, 
nor  revilers,  nor  extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
of  God.  Rev.  22:  14.  Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  command- 
ments, that  they  may  have  a  right  to  the  tr'ee  of  life,  and  may 
enter  in  through  the  gates  of  the  city.  For  without  are  dogs, 
and  sorcerers,  and  whoremongers,  and  murderers,  and  idolaters, 
and  whosoever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie. 


220  MISCELLANEOUS     PROOFS 

I  have  now  some  unclassed  texts  to  introduce.  Rom.  2:  5. 
But  after  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart,  treasurest  up  un- 
to thyself  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath,  and  the  revelation  of 
of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  who  will  render  unto  eve- 
ry man  according  to  his  deeds, — to  them  who  by  patient  con- 
tinuance in  well-doing,  seek  for  glory,  and  honor,  and  immor- 
tality, eternal  life.  But  unto  them  that  are  contentious,  and  do 
not  obey  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  indignation  and 
wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that 
doeth  evil,  to  the  Jew  first  and  also  to  the  Gentile.  Can  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  rewards  and  punishments,  have  a  more  un- 
equivocal and  tremendous  assertion  ?  And  though  it  has  such 
plain  reference  to  the  last  judgment,  Mr.  B.  in  his  Essay  on 
that  subject  has  not  favored  us  with  his  comments  upon  it. 
Here  an  impenitent  life  is  represented  as  treasuring  up  wrath 
against  the  day  of  wrath,  and  it  is  assorted  that  in  that  day  of 
wrath  God  will  render  to  all  the  world,  Jew  and  Gentile,  ac- 
cording to  their  deeds.  Such  a  day  of  course  as  the  day  of 
Jerusalem's  destruction,  was  not  a  day  when  eternal  life  is 
awarded  to  those  who  by  well-doing  have  sought  for  glory  and 
honor  and  immortality — a  day  when  will  come  upon  the  wick- 
ed from  all  the  world,  a  retribution  which  requires  such  an 
accumulation  of  fearful  epithets  to  express,  as  is  hardly  to  be 
found  elsewhere  in  the  compass  of  written  language — indigna- 
tion and  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish. 

Rom.  9:  22.  What  if  God,  willing  to  show  his  wrath,  and 
make  his  power  known,  endured  with  much  long  suffering  the 
vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction  :  and  that  he  might  make 
known  the  riches  of  his  glory,  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which 
he  hath  before  prepared  unto  glory,  even  us  whom  he  hath 
called,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles?  Can 
anything  here  be  meant  by  glory,  short  of  the  glory  of  the 
heavenly  world  ?  A*nd  if  not,  what  can  be  meant  by  the  des- 
truction with  which  the  glory  stands  in  contrast,  but  the  des- 
truction in  hell  ?  And  if  vessels  of  mercy  are  the  objects  of 
eternal  salvation,  the  vessels  of  wratli  are  the  objects  of  eter- 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  221 

lial  wrath.  Surely  the  force  of  the  text  cannot  be  evaded,  by 
the  sing-song  of  Jerusalem's  destruction.  For  it  respects  not 
the  Jews  only  but  also  the  Gentiles. 

Rev.  14:  13.  And  I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying — 
Write — Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord,  from 
henceforth,  yea  saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their 
labors,  and  their  works  do  follow  them.  Here  we  are  told  of  a 
blessing  on  them  who  die  in  the  Lord,  attending  them  after 
death — from  henceforth,  implying  their  conscious  existence, 
and  happiness  immediately  after  death.  But  the  Universalist 
will  tell  you  this  blessedness  consists  only  in  the  remembrance 
and  influence  of  their  good  works  which  live  after  t'  em.  But 
how  this  remembrance  affects  them  as  a  blessing  after  they  are 
dead  and  annihilated,  does  not  appear.  And  then  thousands, 
we  trust,  have  died  in  the  Lord,  and  gained  a  title  to  this  bless- 
edness, who  have  made  no  splendid  achievements  in  this  world 
to  draw  after  them  such  a  posthumous  fame  ;  thousands 
whose  names  and  works  are  soon  forgotten  on  earth — who 
moved  in  humble  and  contracted  spheres  ;  and  who  died  no 
more  missed  by  the  world  than  if  they  never  had  lived,  we 
trust  now  stand  high  in  honor  before  the  eternal  throne.  But 
if  those  who  died  in  the  Lord  are  blessed/ro??i  henceforth,  there 
must  be  retributions  after  death. 

But  I  Avill  not  further  multiply  quotations.  On  every  branch 
of  the  proofs  given  in  this  chapter,  I  have  felt,  that  the  field 
before  me  was  exhaustless.  And  my  greatest  difficulty  hass 
been  in  determining  what  proofs  to  omit.  It  is  worthy  of  re- 
mark, that  most  universalist  arguments  are  employed  in  sus- 
taining negative  positions.  The  task  of  their  writers  is  to  show 
that  this  and  that  is  not  proof  of  future  punishment.  They 
find  little  in  the  Bible  which  has  the  appearance  of  positive 
proof  of  universal  salvation.  This  one  would  think  should 
stumble  them.  For  if  the  gospel  be  a  proclamation  of  uni- 
versal salvation,  it  is  strange  that  a  doctrine  of  such  trans- 
cendant  importance,  was  not  made  the  running  title  of  every 
page.  It  is  strange  that  so  many  expressions,  which  in  the 
literal  and  obvious  sense  assert  the  contrary,  and  which  appa- 
19 


222  MISCELLANEOUS    PROOFS 

rently  obscure  the  truth,  if  that  be  truth,  and  blind  the  eye  of 
the  reader,  were  permitted  to  stand  on  the  inspired  page, — es- 
pecially if  it  be  true  that  universal  salvation  be  so  glorious  to 
God,  the  main  object  of  the  gospel,  this  of  all  doctrines  ought 
to  have  been  indisputably  revealed,  and  not  a  hint  given  to  the 
contraiy. 

Now  let  the  reader  go  back  with  me  and  notice  the  main  po- 
sitions which  I  have  endeavored  to  support,  against  the  efforts 
of  these  writers.  These  must  be  seen  in  their  connection  as 
a  system,  if  we  would  apprehend  fully  how  difficult  a  matter 
it  is  to  make  out  the  proof  of  universal  salvation.  The  man 
who  undertakes  the  proof,  is  under  the  necessity  of  proving 
that  man  has  no  immortal  soul,  that  exists  in  a  state  of  con- 
sciousness after  death  and  before  the  resurrection.  And  he 
must  do  away  all  scripture  testimony  to  this  point.  He  must 
prove  that  there  is  no  judgment  after  death,  and  silence  all  the 
evidence  from  scripture,  and  every  voice  of  Providence  that 
hints  of  a  judgment  to  come.  He  must  satisfy  us  that  the 
scores  of  passages,  which  speak  of  eternal  life,  mean  no  such 
thing;  that  everlasting  punishment,  and  the  words  eternal 
and  forever,  &c.  when  applied  to  punishment,  mean  something 
very  far  from  what  they  seem  to  mean.  He  must  prove  that 
there  is  no  place  of  future  punishment  spoken  of  in  the  bible, 
and  that  all  the  passages  which  refer  to  that  place  under  different 
names  translated  hell,  refer  to  something  experienced  in  this 
world.  And  finally,  he  must  make  it  appear  that  there  are  no 
fallen  angels  now  suffering  eternal  punishment,  and  dispose 
of  more  than  an  hundred  texts  which  speak  of  such  fallen  an- 
gels. Now  the  task  of  the  Universalist  is  not  done  till  all 
these  positions  are  made  good.  Should  he  prove  all  the  rest 
and  yet  leave  us  to  understand  that  there  is  a  judgment  to 
come  ;  or  should  he  prove  all  the  rest,  and  leave  us  to  be- 
lieve that  the  bible  speaks  of  a  hell  as  a  place  of  future  pun- 
ishment, and  so  of  the  rest,  he  would  have  lost  his  labor.  For, 
give  us  one  of  these  positions  and  the  doctrine  of  universal 
salvation  is  overthrown.  We  see  then  what  is  the  united  force 
of  the  whole  argument  against  the  doctrine.     The  different 


OF    FUTURE    PUNISHMENT.  223 

branches  of  the  argument  above  alluded  to,  stand  mutually  re- 
lated in  some  sense  as  the  separate  stones  which  form  an  arch 
—each  giving  strength  to  the  whole,  and  what  goes  to  sustain 
one  goes  to  sustain  the  whole.  All  the  texts  which  prove  one 
of  these  positions,  are  so  many  proofs  of  the  ultimate  doctrine. 
He  who  Avill  believe  in  universal  salvation,  must  face  ihe  sep- 
arate and  united  testimony  of  all  the  passages  of  holy  writ, 
which  go  to  prove  either  of  these  points.  And  no  man  fairly 
deals  with  his  conscience,  who  admits  such  a  belief  without 
clearing  the  ground  of  the  whole  amount  of  this  testimony. 
But  where  is  the  man  who  has  explored  the  whole  subject, 
and  weighed  the  evideace  impartially,  and  found  the  way  on 
all  these  points  open  and  clear  of  obstructions  to  the  belief, 
that  God  has  no  judgnaents  for  his  incorrigible  enemies  be-. 
yond  the  grave  ?  Few  will  even  pretend  to  have  done  it.  And 
those  who  do  thus  pretend  are  in  great  danger,  to  say  the 
least,  of  finding  a  judgment  daj^^and  in  it  a  day  of  disappoint-'^ 
ment  and  terror  unutterable,. 


CHAPTER  XIH. 

SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM. 

It  is  very  common  to  find  those  inclined  to  the  belief  of 
Universalism,  who  have  a  method  of  disposing-  of  the  argu- 
ments brought  against  them,  not  unlike  to  the  Jesuitical  doc- 
trine of  "  probable  opinions."  Present  before  them  a  serious 
argument,  which  goes  to  cut  up  their  whole,  system  by  the 
roots  ;  and  they  have  at  hand,  a  short,  and  as  it  respec'es 
themselves  an  unanswerable  argument.  They  will  tell  you, 
"You  make  your  own  side  of  the  question  very  fair,  but  it  signi- 
fies nothing ;  I  am  not  obliged  to  be  convinced,  so  long  as  I 
know  that  a  very  plausible  story  can  be  told  on  the  other  side." 
The  man  shields  his  conscience  from  the  truth  behind  the 
imagined  probabilities,  that  a  cunning  writer  can  make  out  in, 
favor  of  a  contrary  belief,  when  he  knoAvs  these  probabilities 
come  far  short  of  a  certainty.  When  a  mind  balances  itself  on 
such  principles,  to  offer  it  reasons  is  to  beat  the  air.  I  know  of 
no  way  better  calculated  to  show  to  such  minds  the  folly  of 
their  treatment  of  the  subject,  than  to  give  them  an  opportuni- 
ty to  see  themselves  in  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Jesuits,  as  exposed 
by  Pascal.  This  I  shall  do  by  a  few  quotations.— "  An  opin- 
ion is  cuWod  prohahle,  when  it  is  founded  upon  reasons  of  some 
importance.  And  hence  it  happens  that  only  one  grave  doc- 
tor, can  render  an  opinion  probable  ;  for  a  man  who  is  partic- 
ularly devoted  to  study,  would  not  adopt  an  opinion,  unless  he 
were  induced  by  a  good  and  sufficient  reason— For  if  the  tes- 
timony of  such  a  man  possess  sufhcient  weight  to  convince  us, 
that  any  occurrence  took  place  at  Rome  for  example,  why  should 
it  not  be  equally  satisfactory  in  deciding  a  doubtful  point  of 
morality  ?"  "Their  views  (i.  e.  of  these  grave  doctors)  are  in-. 
deed  frequently  different;  but  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  j 


SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  225 

every  one  may  render  his  own,  probable  and  certain.  We  are 
we!]  aware  their  opinions  are  not  all  coincident :  so  much  the 
better  ;  in  fact,  they  scarcely  ever  agree  ;  for  a  very  few  ^es- 
tions  can  arise  in  which  you  will  not  find  one  say  yes  and  an- 
other no.  But  each  of  these  contrary  opinions  is  probable, 
Pontius  and  Sanchez,  are  of  an  opposite  opinion  ;  but  inasmuch 
as  they  are  both  learned  men,  each  one  makes  his  own  senti- 
ment probable."  "  Such  is  the  use  of  these  contrary  opinions 
on  all  subjects.  One  is  always  for  you,  and  the  other  is  never 
against  you.  If  you  do  not  find  your  account  in  one  way,  you 
are  sure  to  do  so  in  another.  And  so  you  are  always  safe." 
Though  the  doctrine  herein  stated  is  not  sanctioned  by  the 
creed  of  the  Universalists,  it  is  sanctioned  by  the  conduct  of 
many,  whose  minds  without  satisfactory  evidence,  are  inclined 
to  take  up  that  belief.  Though  the  plain  common-sense-read- 
ing of  the  Bible  is  against  them,  they  yet  feel  justified  in  tak- 
ing up  the  opinion  which  they  prefer,  because  more  than  one 
"grave  doctor"  has  asserted  it.  "  And  it  is  not  to  be  suppos- 
ed that  he  would,  unless  he  were  induced  to  it  by  good  and 
Bufiicient  reasons."  A  man  so  "  particularly  devoted  to  study," 
as  Mr.  Whittemore,  and  a  man  who  can  write  Greek  and  He- 
brew words,  with  as  much  ease  as  ISIr.  Balfour,  is  not  to  be 
supposed  to  assert  the  doctrine,  without  good  and  sufficient 
reasons,  even  though  the  whole  scope  of  the  Bible  is  against 
him.  Here  is  the  method,  in  which  they  operate  on  the  minds 
of  thousands,  who  through  mental  indolence,  or  fear  of  being 
convinced  against  their  wishes,  refuse  to  give  the  subject  a 
full  and  impartial  examination,  and  yet  in  spite  of  all  proofs 
persist  in  the  flesh-pleasing  delusion. 

This,  however,  is  a  disease  of  mind,  which  no  reasonings  can 
cure.  All  that  can  be  attempted  with  any  rational  hope  of  suc- 
cess is,  so  to  expose  the  common  sources  of  Universalism,  that 
it  shall  clearly  appear,  that  this  and  that  man's  belief  of  the 
doctrine,  affords  no  ground  for  presuming  the  doctrine  true. 
We  come  then  directly  at  the  question,— What  are  the  caus- 
es, that  incline  the  minds  of  men  to  the  belief  of  the  doctrine 
in  question.  That  interpretations  of  the  word  of  God  which 
19* 


226  SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM. 

are  palpably  false,  and  in  many  cases  ridiculous,  are  receivea 
as  sound — that  the  crudest  absurdities  are  digested,  by  ma- 
ny who  ought  to  knovv  better — that  men  of  sense  in  other 
matters,  knowing  that  their  everlasting  all  is  at  stake,  will  suf- 
fer themselves  to  be  carried  away,  by  reasons  on  which  in  oth- 
er matters  they  would  not  risk  a  sixpence.  Here  is  a  phenom- 
enon in  human  character  which  I  now  propose  to  explain. 

In  the  explanation  I  remark  in  the  first  place,  that  whatev- 
er the  causes  may  be  which  bring  so  many  to  the  belief  of  this 
doctrine,  it  is  not  the  perception  of  any  firm  and  satisfactory 
reasons  in  the  case,  as  may  be  shown  from  the  shifting  and 
varying  character  of  the  premises  on  which  it  has  been  built. 
The  premises  have  often  been  changed,  while  the  conclusion 
has  remained.  That  the  proof  may  be  adopted  and  then  set 
aside,  like  almanacks  when  out  of  date,  and  yet  the  same  con- 
clusion remain — and  that  the  same  mind  could  at  the  same 
time  draw  conviction  from  opposite  premises,  is  the  conclusion 
to  which  the  history  of  Universalism  would  bring  us.  The 
first  Universalists  were  Rcstorationists,  believing  in  a  purga- 
torial punishment  in  the  future  world.  Next  comes  in  the  doc- 
trine of  no  punishment  in  the  future  world,  built  on  some  of 
the  doctrines  of  Calvinism  caricatured.  Next,  these  grounds 
are  abandoned,  and  the  same  doctrine  comes  forward  under  the 
auspices  of  Messrs.  B.  and  W.  and  their  coadjutors,  sustained 
by  such  interpretations  as  we  have  been  examining.  Some  will 
have  it  that  the  obvious  understanding  of  some  passages  of  the 
Bible,  brings  us  to  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  but  the 
doctrine  not  being  in  itself  reasonable,  and  consistent  with  the 
known  goodness  of  God,  those  passages  must  be  so  explained 
away,  as  to  consist  with  more  rational  views.  Others  will  have 
U3  believe  that  all  passages  of  the  Bible  are  obviously  consis- 
tent with  the  doctrine  of  no  future  punishment.  But  as  the 
conscience  cannot  at  all  times  and  in  all  persons  be  made  to 
see  with  such  eyes,  the  original  doctrine  of  restoration  is  held 
by  many,  as  a  sort  of  reserve  ground,  to  flee  to  when  driven 
from  the  more  comforting  doctrine  of  no  hell  at  all.  That  dif- 
ferent minds  should  stand  on  grounds  so  opposite,  is  not  mar- 


SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  227 

veloiis;  but  that  one  and  the  same  mind  should  hold  them  both 
at  once,  show  that  the  conclusion  is  regarded  as  more  impor- 
tant than  the  means  of  coming  at  it.  My  observation  much 
deceives  me  if  it  be  not  true  of  the  great  mass  of  the  Univer- 
salists,  and  more  especially  of  the  more  intelligent  of  them,  that 
they  feel  about  an  equal  confidence  and  interest  in  both  these 
systems — opposite  as  they  are  in  respect  to  grounds  of  proof. 
The  expression  has  gone  into  a  proverb  among  those  who  pro- 
fess to  believe  in  no  future  punisliraent,  that  the  restoration 
system  "is  better  than  nothing."  And  inconsistent  as  it  is 
with  thoir  professed  belief,  they  cherish  it  with  a  strong  affec- 
tion. "And  they  guard  with  a  jealous  care  against  any  con- 
troversy with  Restorationists  (see  preliminaries  to  the  Danvers 
discussion  and  the  Universalist  Trumpet  ^jctssim)  and  the  read- 
er is  requested  to  bear  in  mind  the  question,  whether  there  is 
not  among  this  class  of  Universalists,  much  of  playing  fast  and 
loose,  respecting  the  grounds  on  which  they  are  willing  to 
rest  their  system,  that  he  may  satisfy  himself  by  future  obser- 
vation. Refute  before  them  Mr.  Balfour's  positions,  and  even 
those  -who  have  been  wont  to  look  at  this  author  as  their  ora- 
cle, are  ready  to  say — "We  never  agreed  with  Mr.  B.  on  that 
point."  Or,  "We  always  had  our  doubts  about  it"  Now  the 
conclusion  to  which  all  this  brings  us  is,  that  Universalism 
originates  rather  in  the  desire  of  the  mind,  than  in  the  force  of 
solid  proofs.  The  conclusion  seems  to  have  been  antece- 
dent to  the  proofs.  U  is  a  fabrif  that  can  stand  as  well  with- 
out an  underpinning  as  with  it.  And  the  foundation  can  be 
slipped  from  beneath  it,  and  exchanged  for  another,  as  often  as 
it  Is  conceived  another  can  be  found  of  more  decent  appearance. 
The  underpinning  by  the  way  is  used  only  for  appearance 
sake.  If  Mr.  B.'s  system  be  the  true  one,  the  Universalism 
which  existed  before  this  was  invented,  must  have  been  be- 
lieved without  known  and  sufficient  reasons.  A  system  of 
doctrines,  under  so  little  obligations  to  its  proofs,  that  it  can 
discard  and  renew  them  at  pleasure,  mast  be  rather  the  off- 
spring of  man's  convenience  and  desires,  than  the  result  of  im- 
partial study  of  the  word  of  God. 


228  SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM. 

In  speaking  more  directly  of  the  sources  of  Universalisnir 
I  shall  first  take  the  position  that  the  depraved  inclinations  of 
men  are  a  fruitful  occasion  of  their  embracing  it.  I  suppose  I 
shall  not  be  required  to  prove  in  this  place,  that  there  are  some 
men  whose  hearts  are  inclined  to  sin.  And  I  suppose  most 
readers  will  admit  that  all  hearts  are  more  or  less  so  inclined* 
And  I  suppose  it  will  also  be  admitted,  that  as  strong  as  is  a 
man's  desire  after  an  unlawful  gratification,  so  strong  is  his  in- 
terest to  wish  that  no  painful  consequences  might  follow  the 
indulgence.  So  strong  as  is  a  man's  inclination  to  pursue  a 
sinful  course  of  life,  so  much  is  he  inclined  to  wish  there  might 
be  no  punishment  for  sin  in  the  world  to  come.  That  some 
wicked  men  are  troubled  by  the  fear  of  hell,  I  think  will  not 
be  doubted.  That  many  of  them  suflTer  a  great  amount  from 
such  fears  is  true.  The  Universalisls  are  wont  to  tell  us  of 
the  great  amount  of  suffering,  created  in  the  minds  of  men  by 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment :  and  to  make  that  a  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  preached.  Now  if  some  minds  suffer  so 
much,  by  entertaining  the  idea  of  future  misery,  as  consequent 
on  a  life  of  sin,  is  it  strange,  considering  how  much  the  inter- 
ests and  the  desires  influence  the  decisions  of  the  understand- 
ing? Is  it  strange  that  some  through  their  wishes  come  to  be- 
lieve that  there  is  no  hell  ?  It  is  familiar  to  every  one,  with 
how  much  ease  men  convince  themselves  of  that  which  they 
wish  to  believe.  And  what  doctrine  can  a  man,  determined  on 
a  life  of  sin  and  impenitence,*have  a  stronger  wish  to  believe, 
than  that  of  no  judgment  to  come  ? 

Again,  the  strong  affinities  which  this  doctrine  has  for 
wicked  and  dissolute  men  goes  to  the  same  point.  What  the 
lilarl  of  Rochester  said  of  the  Bible,  will  particularly  apply  to 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  reckoning  for  sin.  "A  bad  life  is  the 
only  grand  objection  to  it."  A  bad  life,  a  life  at  variance  with 
the  requirements  of  the  Bible,  constitutes  an  ever  present,  and 
powerful  bias  of  the  mind,  towards  Universalism.  And  men 
of  dissolute  lives  have  the  strongest  objections  to  a  future  judg- 
ment. The  fact,  which  few  except  Universalists  will  deny,  and 
which  some  of  them  confess,  that  dissolute  and  immoral  men, 


SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALTSM.  229 

are  specially  inclined  to  Universalism,  goes  to  show  that  a  bad 
life  is  an  all  powerful  argument,  multiplying  the  conquests  of 
Universalism.  I  have  good  authority  for  saying,  that  some 
Universaljsts  confess  this  fact.  Mr.  Whittemore,  p.  195,  "vvhilo 
drawing  a  contrast  between  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  which 
he  makes  the  representatives  of  the  religious  men  of  the  pres- 
ent day,  and  the  publicans  and  harlots,  which  he  will  have  us 
believe,  have  their  successors  in  the  Universal ists — says  that 
the  publicans  and  harlots  were  exceedingly  fond  of  the  society 
of  .Tesus,  and  that  his  instructions  had  a  special  attraction  for 
them.     But  I  must  give  the  paragraph  entire  : 

^'  There  can  be  no  question  that  what  is  here  stated 
was  a  fact.  This  class  of  people  became  exceedingly  fond  of 
the  society  of  Jesus,  and  listened  to  his  instructions  with  great 
delight.  JMattliew  himself  had  been  a  Publican.  They  ate 
and  drank  with  Christ,  and  he  was  contemptuously  styled  by 
the  Pharisees,  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.  Despised 
as  they  were  by  the  leading  religious  people  of  the  age,  ac- 
customed to  reproach  and  contumely,  they  rejoiced  to  find  their 
cause  espoused  by  the  great  teacher  sent  fmm  Hnrl  HL<i  doc- 
iriru>  «iPJt  nr^ri  onU.^,,1  {hr>^r  .-/—•'-"»  «"^^  tl^ey  recelvea  K  with 
joy.  The  common  people  heard  him  gladly.  For  the  proud, 
the  censorious,  the  self-righteous  who  thought  they  had  gain- 
ed heaven  by  their  own  exertions,  and  who  anticipated  with 
fondness  the  joyful  day,  when  they  should  see  those  they  des- 
pised, suffering  the  fierce  displeasure  of  God — for  such  the  be- 
nevolent, impartial  religion  of  Jesus  had  no  charms.  Such  peo- 
ple always  opposed  Christ  when  he  was  on  earth.  And  in  ev- 
ery age  since,  those  of  a  kindred  disposition  have  hated  his 
doctrine.  These  are  the  reasons  why  publicans  and  harlots, 
entered  the  kingdom  of  God  before  the  professedly  religious 
scribes  and  pharisees.      We  learx  from  this,  what  class 

OF  PEOPLE  IT  IS,  AMONG  WHOM  AT  THE  PRESENT  DAT,  THE 
DOCTRINE  OF  THE  IMPARTIAL  SAVIOUR  [univCrsalism]  SHALL 
FLOURISH  IN  ITS    PURITT." 

Here  v/e  are  unblushingly  told,  that  what  Mr.  W.  calls  the 
doctrine  of  the  impartial  Saviour,  that  is  Universalism.  had  in 


230  SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM. 

the  days  of  Christ  and  now  has  a  peculiar  attraction  for  aban- 
doned men  and  women.  And  this  it  seems  not  because  it  had 
any  tendency  to  change  their  tempers,  and  characters,  and 
make  them  religious,  but  because  the  doctrine  "mef  and  satisfied 
their  desires."  Not  because  Christ,  by  the  force  of  his  doctrines, 
won  them  over  to  his  cause,  but  because  they  rejoiced  to  find 
"  THEIR  CAUSE  esfoused  by  the  great  teacher  sent  from  God" 
Here  we  are  told  in  so  many  blasphemous  words,  that  Christ 
espoused  the  cause  of  the  publican  and  harlot! !  And  what  in 
the  name  of  purity  and  decency  was  that  cause  ?  It  seems 
that  Christ  met  and  satisfied  the  desires  of  the  publicans  and 
the  harlots  !  Oh,  shame  where  is  thy  blush  !  It  seems  too, 
that  Universalism  now  does  the  same.  That  it  shall  flaurish 
in  its  puiity  among  those  abandoned  of  all  purity  {  The  pur- 
est specimens  of  Universalism,  according  to  one  of  its  own  doc- 
tors who  ought  to  be  competent  to  inform  us,  are  to  be  found 
in  the  abodes  of  harlots.  It  is  no  wonder  then,  that  females, 
who  have  regard  to  character  and  purity,  are  so  shy  as  they 
proverbially  are  of  being  found  under  the  droppings  of  Uni- 

The  tendency  of  a  wicked  life,  to  beget  Universalism,  Way- 
be  illustrated  by  a  passage  in  the  life  of  Rosseau  a  man 
equally  distinguished  for  a  dissipated  life,  for  finished  scholar- 
ship and  libertine  sentiments.  After  his  apostacy  from  the 
Protestant  to  the  Catholic  Religion,  he  went  to  reside  with 
Madame  de  Warrens,  with  whom  he  sustained  a  criminal  fa- 
miliarity. This  woman  often  suggested,  that  "there  could  be 
no  justice  in  God,  should  he  be  strictly  just  to  us.  Because 
not  having  bestowed  what  was  necessary  to  make  us  essen- 
tially good,  it  would  be  requiring  more  than  he  had  given." 
Rosseau  at  first,  was  far  enough  from  being  of  that  opinion, 
yet  he  confessed  he  dared  not  combat  the  arguments  of  the 
lady,  while  acting  on  the  same  principles.  "Finding  in  her," 
he  adds,  "  all  the  ideas  I  had  occasion  for,  to  secure  me  from 
the  fears  of  death  and  its  consequences,!  drew  confidence  and 
security  from  this  source."  This  story  is  full  of  instructioo, 
as  to  the  matter  before  us.    Universalism,  like  the  sentiments  of 


SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM.  231 

that  woman,  famishes  the  wicked  man  all  the  ideas  he  has 
occasion  for.  He  cannot  consistently  combat  it,  because  his 
whole  conduct  is  based  on  the  presumption  of  its  truth.  It  re- 
quires but  half  an  eye  for  him  to  see  himself,  pledged  to  a 
Universalist  belief.  The  influence  of  early  education,  and  the 
light  yet  lingering  in  his  conscience,  may  prevent  his  adoption 
of  it — he  may  be  so  inconsistent  as  to  assert  a  contrary  belief— 
the  decisions  of  his  understanding  may  be  strong  against  it, 
yet  it  requires  but  little  discernment  for  him  to  see,  that  every 
word  he  utters  against  universalism,  condemns  himself.  Like 
Rosseau,  while  far  enough  from  being  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  such  doctrines,  he  cannot  freely  combat  them.  The  incon- 
sistency flashes  upon  him — he  sees  that  the  whole  tenor  of  his 
life,  demands  such  a  belief,  and  every  step  of  argument  by 
which  he  would  disprove  it,  goes  to  prove  himself  alarmingly  at 
war  with  his  own  eternal  interest.  In  this  way  a  wicked 
life  by  unobserved,  influence,  represses  those  efforts  of  thought 
and  reason,  which  should  keep  before  the  mind  a  steady  sup- 
ply of  proofs  of  a  judgment  to  come,  and  throws  the  mind  un- 
der a  bias  towards  the  hope  and  the  belief  that  there  will  be 
no  judgment. 

In  the  next  place,  Universalism  every  way  furnishes  the 
wicked  man  the  ideas  he  has  occasion  for.  His  occasions  for 
such  ideas  are  as  frequent  as  his  wicked  acts  and  his  remorse- 
ful reflections  upon  them.  Every  admonition  of  conscience 
points  to  a  judgment  to  come,  alarms  his  quiet  and  makes  oc- 
casion for  repose,  in  the  hope  that  there  will  be  no  reckoning 
day.  And  the  occasions  become  more  urgent,  as  these  alarms 
of  conscience  become  more  deep  and  loud.  The  man  who  is 
determined  to  indulge  in  forbidden  gratifications,  is  reduced  to 
the  necessity  of  facing  the  reproaches  of  his  own  conscience, 
or  of  doing  habitual  violence  to  his  convictions,  or  of  screening 
himself  behind  the  miserable  subterfuges  of  Universalism.  So 
that,  whether  he  distinctly  purposes  it  or  not,  all-the  faculties  of 
his  mind  feel  the  pressure  and  embarrassment  of  such  a  ne- 
cessity. His  fancy  obeys  its  impulse  in  the  conceptions  it 
forms  of  religious  things.     His  memory  does  its  office  with  a 


232  SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM. 

partiality  equally  obedient.  His  perceptions  are  clear  or  cloud- 
ed, on  this  or  that  side  of  the  argument,  in  proportion  to  the 
force  of  the  desire  that  employs,  them.  And  so  his  judgment 
is  prepared  to  strike  the  balance  on  the  side  whither  the  oc^ 
casion  presses.  And  the  whole  mental  machinery  is  governed 
in  its  movements,  by  the  overwhelming  interest  at  stake. 

And  then  the  doctrine  confirms  its  dominion  in  the  confi- 
dence it  imparts  to  an  impenitent  life.  After  the  mind,  under 
the  influence  of  the  necessity  of  which  we  have  spoken,  grasp- 
ing at  the  least  shadow  of  evidence  that  appears  to  favor  the 
desired  doctrine,  and  bracing  against  every  thing  that  makes 
against  it,  begins  to  admit  some  glimpses  of  assurance  of  it, 
such  a  confidence  of  the  safety  of  an  impenitent  life  comes  in, 
as  is  not  easily  surrendered.  The  sense  of  security  in  sin,  in- 
creasing in  proportion  as  a  man's  belief  in  universalism  ap- 
proaches to  assurance,  places  a  mind  in  such  a  position,  that  it 
is  about  as  difficult  for  him  to  entertain  the  thought,  however 
forcibly  urged,  of  stepping  off  from  his  universalist  ground,  as 
it  would  be  for  a  man  who  was  riding  quietly  in  a  vessel,  in 
the  midst  of  the  ocean,  to  entertain  the  thought  of  stepping 
off  into  the  pathless  sea.  Plis  determination  on  an  impenitent 
life,  fostered  by  the  universalist  hopes,  becomes  so  fixed,  that 
he  is  satisfied  that  he  shall  sink  if  his  Universalism  fails  him. 
Thus  the  doctrine  swells  the  number  of  its  adherents,  by  being 
a  place  of  refuge  to  shield  the  ungodly  from  the  fears  of  the 
just  judgment  of  God,  a  retreat  from  the  scorpion  lashes  of  a 
guilty  conscience. 

Do  I  say  by  this  that  all  Universalists  are  dissolute  men? 
By  no  means.  I  affirm  no  further  than  that  a  wicked  life  fos- 
ters Universalism,  and  Universalism  favors  a  wicked  life.  I  do 
not  deny  but  there  are  some  Universalists  of  correct  moral  de- 
portment. And  with  regard  to  their  morality  as  a  sect,  I  wish 
not  and  need  not  to  affirm.  It  is  a  matter  about  which  every 
man  can  form  his  own  opinion. 

Again,  the  mind  of  every  man,  who  is  conscious  of  wicked- 
ness, feels  in  the  decision  of  this  question,  something  of  that 
embarrassment,  which  a  condemned  criminal  feels  Avhen  judg- 


SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM.  233 

ing  of  the  penalties  laid  upon  him.  Go  into  one  of  our  States 
Prisons,  and  how  few  are  there  among  the  hundreds  of  convicts 
there  confined,who  really  acknowledge  the  justice  of  their  being 
made  to  suffer  so  much  ?  That  for  the  gratification  of  an  hour, 
that  for  one  act  of  theft  or  forgery,  they  should  endure  years 
of  imnrisonment,  within  those  dreary  walls,  driven  like  beasts 
to  their  daily  task,  and  nightly  locked  within  the  solitary  cell. 
Question  them  and  they  would  say,  their  punishment  is  out  of 
all  proportion— that  there  is  no  justice  in  their  suffering  so 
much  for  offences  so  small.  And  yet  why  do  their  conclu- 
sions on  this  subject  differ  so  much  from  those  of  disinterested 
impartial  men,  and  those  of  men  who  framed  the  laws?  Be- 
cause they  are  interested  judges,  viewing  their  punishment  in 
all  its  length  and  breadth,  and  overlooking  the  injury  they 
have  done  to  the  commonwealth.  So  it  is  with  a  man  who 
sits  in  judgment  on  the  penalties,  which  infinite  wisdom  has 
seen  fit  to  attach  to  sin.  He  estimates  as  far  as  he  can  the 
fearful  length  and  breadth  of  eternal  perdition,  and  so  fills  his 
mind  with  it,as  to  exclude  a  proper  sense  of  the  great  occasions, 
which  God,  the  protector  of  the  rights  of  the  universe,  has  to 
visit  him  with  such  inflictions.  He  overlooks  the  bearings  of 
his  sins,  on  the  broad  interests  of  the  kingdom  of  God — over- 
looks the  number  and  aggravation  of  his  offences,  and  then 
begins  to  inquire  for  the  justice  of  inflicting  such  penalties, 
for  offences  that  stand  in  his  own  estimate  for  such  trifles. 
And  having  by  such  means  satisfied  himself,  that  such  a  pun- 
ishment would  be  unjust,  he  concludes  it  will  not  be  inflicted. 
Now  the  state-prisoner,  who  pronounces  against  the  goodness 
of  the  law  that  condemns  him,  is  under  a  bias  which  bears  no 
proportion  to  that,  which  inclines  the  "mind  to  reject  the  idea  of 
future  punishment. 

The  minds  of  multitudes  arc  prepared  for  Universalism,  by 
limited  views  of  the  evil  of  sin.  Fools  make  a  mock  at  sin. 
Wicked  men  are  exceedingly  prone  to  underrate  the  evil  na- 
ture of  transgression  of  God's  law.  For  a  creature  whose 
life  is  but  a  vapor  to  gratify  a  vicious  inclination,  appears  a 
trifle.  They  do  not  consider  themselves  as  links  in  the  great 
20 


234  SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALI^M.   " 

chain  of  moral  government,  and  they  do  not  consider  how  ev- 
ery transgression  of  theirs  does  violence  to  the  whole  system, 
— starting  a  train  of  mischiefs,  which,  if  not  counteracted, 
would  ruin  a  universe.  If  men  would  look  at  sin  with  such 
eyes  as  did  the  apostle,  when  he  found  it  exceeding  sinful — if 
they  would  estimate  their  own  character  by  the  light  of  God's 
law,  if  they  would  estimate  the  character  of  sin  by  the  infinite- 
ly extended  interests  that  it  is  calculated  to  injure,  they  would 
rind  it  more  difficult  to  believe,  that  God  can  and  will  redeem 
any  sinner,  than  that  he  will  send  any  to  eternal  misery.  That 
a  God  of  infinite  holiness  can  and  will  receive  to  favor  and  to 
heaven,  a  man  who  has  done  so  much  mischief  in  \\\a  kingdom, 
and  would  have  done  infinitely  more  if  he  had  not  been  pre- 
vented, is  more  incredible  than  that  a  God  of  infinite  good- 
ness will  inflict  endless  pains  upon  the  guilty.  Thus  inade- 
quate views  of  guilt,  lead  to  inadequate  views  of  God's  treat- 
ment of  the  guilty.    . 

A  vvant  of  a  real  and  present  sense  of  eternal  things  tends  to 
the  same  result.  Some  men  reason  and  decide  about  eternal 
things,  with  as  much  carelessness  of  the  conclusions  to  which 
they  are  to  come,  as  they  would  feel  were  they  bargaining  for 
the  sale  of  their  possessions  in  the  island  of  Utopia,  or  as  if  pur- 
chasing a  farm  in  the  moon.  Eternity  is  with  them  a  matter 
of  much  conversation  but  of  little  real  apprehension.  They 
put  far  away  the  evil  day, — look  upon  death  as  distant — little 
think  what  will  be  the  wants  of  the  mind,  when  it  wakes  be- 
yond the  grave — little  think  how  grave  and  of  what  personal  in- 
terest the  matters  are,  of  which  the  Bible  treats.  Hence  orig- 
inates a  levity  of  thought  and  feeling,  during  the  examination, 
(if  examination  ever  be  had)  of  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  by 
reason  of  vvhich  the  matter  is  treated  as  of  no  more  concern 
than  a  question  of  history  or  politics.  Whereas  a  conclusion 
on  such  a  subject,  and  especially  the  conclusion  that  it  will  be 
well  with  every  sinner  after  death,  should  come  in  at  the  end 
of  an  investigation,  conducted  with  a  mind  under  the  pressure 
of  eternal  interests  fully  apprehended,  a  pressure  giving  force 
and  earnestness  to  every  movement  of  the  thoughts. 


SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  235 

Again,  Universalism  sometimes  setiles  into  the  mind  after 
some  special  alarms  of  conscience,  and  after  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  have  been  resisted.     Temporary  religious  im- 
pressions, if  effaced,  generally  leave  the  mind  in  a  worse  con- 
dition.   Says  the  Apostle,  "  If  after  they  have  escaped  the  pol- 
lutions of  the  worUl  through  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  they  r.re  again  entangled  therein,  and  overcome,  the 
latter  end  is  worse  than  the  beginning.  For  it  had  been  better 
for  them  not  to  have  known  the  way  of  righteousness,  than  af- 
ter Ihcy  had  known  it,  to  torn  from  the  holy  commandment  de- 
livered unto  tliem.     But  it  has  happened  unto  them  according 
to  the  true  proverb,  the  dog  is  turned  to  his  ov.-n  vomit  again, 
and  the  sow  that  was  washed,  to  her  wallowing  in  the  mire.*' 
And  one  greater  than  an  Apostle  has  said,   "When  the  un- 
clean spirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man,  he  walketh  through  dry  pla- 
ces seeking  rest  and  findetli  none.     Then  saith  he,  T  will  return 
to  my  ho.use  from  whence  I  came  out,  and  when  he  is  come,  he 
findeth  it  empty,  swept,  and  garnished.     Then  goeth  he  and 
takcth  to  himselfeevcn  other  spirits  more  wicked  than  him- 
self, and  they  enter  in  and  dwell  there,  and  the  last  state  of  that 
man  is  worse  than  the  first."     Such  is  the  condition  of  those 
who  have  admitted  convictions  of  sin  for  a  while,  v/lio  have  un- 
der the  alarms  of  an  awakened  conscience,  commenced  an  ex- 
ternal reformation,  and  formed  many  purposes  of  a  religious 
life,  and  who  from  that  state  of  mind,  have  returned  to  more 
than  their  former  wickedness.     Such  a  relapse  is  often  accom- 
panied v.'ith  the  adoption  of  Universalism.     The  conscience 
becoming  scared,  and  the  force  of  depraved  passions  more 
strong,  new  tendencies  to  such  an  error  are  created.     On  this 
ground  there  is  some  truth  in  the  pretence  sometimes  put  forth, 
that  revivals  of  religion  sometimes  contribig^  to  increase  the 
number  of  Infidels  and  Universalists.     If  Universalists  were 
to  reap  a  harvest  after  a  season  of  powerful  awakening  among 
a  people,  from  those  who  have  resisted  convictions,  and  return- 
ed like  the  dog  to  his  vomit,  it  would  be  nothing  strange.     Re- 
vivals of  religion  nov/,  as  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  are  doubt- 
less made  a  savor  of  death  unto  death  to  many.     Probably  hell 


236  SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM. 

itself,  while  it  loses  many  that  are  snatched  as  brands  from 
the  burning-,  makes  itself  more  sure  of  others,  whom  resisted 
convictions  leave  in  a  state  worse  than  the  first ;  and  in  that 
sense  hell  may  boast  of  its  gleanings  if  not  of  its  harvests 
reaped  from  reivals  of  religion. 

Again,  if  positions  above  taken  be  true,  every  thing  that 
tends  to  vitiate  the  moral  habits,  may  be  counted  among  the 
auxiliaries  of  Universalism.  There  is  some  philosophy  in  Mr. 
Whittemore's  calculation,  that  Universalism  will  flourish  most 
among  those  of  abandoned  character.  Where  the  moral  hab- 
its are  bad,  the  moral  sense  is  proportionally  obtuse.  The 
more  a  man's  propensities  and  habits  become  vitiated,  the 
strength  of  his  desire  for  forbidden  indulgences  is  increased, 
and  with  it  is  increased  his  occasion  and  his  inclinition  to  have 
the  doctrine  of"  no  judgment  to  come"  prove  true.  And  if  so, 
we  may  look  abroad  upon  the  face  of  society,  and  survey  all 
the  causes  that  are  operating  to  vitiate  the  morals  of  the  young 
and  the  old,  as  so  many  sources  of  influence  favorable  to  Uni- 
versalism. When  we  talk  of  men  being  principled,  and  un- 
principled in  respect  to  morals,  we  usually  mean  no  more  than 
that  one  has,  and  the  other  has  not  a  practical  regard  to  right 
and  wrong,  and  a  practical  sense  of  future  rstributions.  When 
a  man  becomes  reckless  of  the  consequences  of  right  or  wrong 
in  conduct,  he  is  an  unprincipled  man.  Now  if  Universal- 
ists  are  not  better  than  their  theory, — if  they  have  no  regard 
to  the  consequences  of  their  conduct,  any  further  than  they 
touch  their  present  interest,  they  come  up  to  our  ideas  of  unprin- 
cipled. And  any  influence  that  goes  to  abate  the  force  of  mor- 
al principles,  vitiate  the  moral  taste,  and  throw  a  man  under  the 
dominion  of  appetite,  and  away  from  the  guidance  of  conscience, 
goes  to  make  a  tpan  unprincipled,  and  prepare  his  mind  in 
form  to  avow  Universalists'  doctrines.  There  are  as  many 
sources  of  universalist  influence  in  the  land,  as  there  are  sour- 
ces of  moral  debasement  and  ruin.  And  the  multitude  and  va- 
riety of  these  is  endless.  The  operation  of  moral  causes  is  so 
adjusted  in  this  world  which  lieth  in  wickedness,  that  man  is 
interested  in  a  thousand  ways,  to  procure  the  ruin  of  his  fel- 


SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  237 

]ow.  His  selfishness  with  all  its  power  enlists  him  in  this  and 
that  enterprise,  which  is  little  else  than  ministering  tempta- 
tions and  inducements,  for  men  to  ruin  themselves.  Millions 
of  capital  are  invested  in  a  laborious  and  omnipresent  minis- 
tration to  depraved  and  ruinous  appetit<3s.  Talents,  labor  and 
lives,  which  might  be  valuable  to  the  world,  are  spent  in  pan- 
dering to  the  lusts,  and  procuring  the  ruin  of  thousands  ar.d 
tens  of  thousands.  It  would  require  a  volume  to  give  the 
names  of  all  the  parts  of  that  vast  and  complicated  machinery, 
employed  to  bring  gain  to  one  part  of  the  world,  out  of  the  ru- 
in of  the  other.  Every  base  appetite  has  its  expensive  estab- 
lishment, and  its  army  of  operatives,  in  constant  service.  The 
thirst  for  vicious  amusements  has  its  theatres  and  nameless 
appropriate  establishments,  and  in  each,  a  sufficient  corps  of 
men  and  women,  trained  to  the  profession  of  corrupting  the 
morals  of  the  old  and  young.  The  sensual  lusts  have  other 
millions  of  wealth,  and  other  armies  of  men  and  women,  as  ca- 
terers. Here  is  a  squadron,  dealing  out  intoxicating  drinks. — 
There  is  another  ministering  to  a  lust  stil!  more  debasing  and 
unclean.  Indeed  every  bar-room,  grog-shop,  theatre,  brothel, 
gaming  and  lottery  establishment,  may  be  considered  as  a 
source  of  moral  debasement,  and  therefore  of  Universalism. 
There  is  no  avenue  through  which  moral  destruction  can  find 
its  way  to  the  heartof  man,  where  there  is  not  some  part  of  the 
destroyer's  army,  stationed  with  ample  magazines  of  death. 

Again,  evil  communications  corrupt  good  manners,  and  in 
that,  good  principles.  Many  a  young  man  may  trace  the  ori- 
gin of  his  Universalism,  to  familiar  intercourse  with  men  whose 
conversation  abounds  with  objections  to  the  truth.  The  young 
man  by  courting  such  companionships,  comes  in  contact  with 
.  minds  envenomed  with  an  ever  active  hostility  to  the  truth, 
and  seeking  occasions  to  deposit  the  leaven  where  it  will 
work,  and  so  puts  himself  under  an  influence  that  while  he 
perceives  it  not,  works  as  surely  as  any  law  of  our  nature,  to 
fritter  away  his  faith  in  the  verities  of  the  gospel.  The  shape 
and  movements  of  all  minds,  are  modified  by  the  action  of  ad- 
jacent minds.     And  where  one  comes  into  familiar  intercourse 

-*2Q 


238  SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM. 

Avith  a  man  of  lax  principles,  he  puts  himself  under  a  danger- 
ous influence,  not  only  unarmed,  but  in  a  posture  favorable  to 
receiving  the  poison — inasmuch  as  the  sympathies  of  social  in- 
tercourse, and  the  operation  of  the  social  instinct,  and  the  de- 
sire of  pleasing  and  being  pleased,  inseparable  from  social  in- 
tercourse, open  the  mind  to  the  reception  of  whatever  erro- 
nious  impressions  a  man  wishes  to  convey.  If  an  enemy  of 
the  truth  can  succeed  to  wake  all  your  social  sympathies  to- 
wards himself,  and  call  them  into  frequent  and  unreserved  ac- 
tion, and  withal  allay  any  suspicions  you  may  have  of  his  de- 
sign to  corrupt  your  faith,  and  if  you  let  him  use  the  liberty  of 
uttering  on  all  occasions  the  prevailing  sentiments  of  his  mind, 
his  work  is  half  done.  "To  hear  objections  against  the  truth 
continually  repeated,  without  being  answered,  lo  hear  the  cause 
of  Christ  attacked  in  every  possible  form,  without  being  in  a 
situation,  in  a  becoming  manner,  to  undertake  its  defence, 
must  have  an  injurious  tendency.  Conversation,  if  we  intend 
to  please  and  be  pleased,  should  never  be  a  scene  of  continual 
dispute  ;  we  must  either  relinquish  such  society,  or  hold  our 
peace.  That  person  who  feels  himself  called  upon  on  every 
occasion  to  defend  his  religion,  will  grow  weary  of  contention, 
and  seek  repose  in  other  kinds  of  society.  But  if  he  contin- 
ues in  it,  he  will  at  length  learn  to  be  silent.  Silence  will  lead 
to  acquiescence,  and  finally  he  will  adjust  his  opinions. to  the 
standard  of  those,  with  whom  he  associates.  If  any  man  sup- 
poses that  he  has  strength  of  mind  sufficient  to  continue  in 
such  society,  without  having  the  foundations  of  his  confidence 
in  the  truth  weakened,  that  man  is  entirely  unacquainted  with 
his  own  heart." 

Another  thought.  The  very  doubts  and  misgivings  of  the 
Universal ists  themselves,  are  the  cause  of  much  care  and  la- 
bor on  the  part  of  Universalists,  to  extend  their  opinions.  The 
question  has  been  a  thousand  times  asked — "If you  are  so  sure 
of  the  truth  of  your  notion  that  all  Avill  be  saved,  whether 
they  believe  or  not,  why  so  anxious  to  induce  men  to  believe 
it  .^"  as  if  the  salvation  of  men  depended  on  their  believing  it. 
And  it  lias  been  a  thousand  times  answered — Because  we  want 


SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  239 

you  to  enjoy  the  comforts  of  our  doctrine  in  this  life.  But  who 
was  ever  satined  witli  that  as  the  real  reason  ?  Who  can  be 
satisfied  till  he  sees  that  Universalists  in  fact  have  some  palpa- 
ble advantage  of  the  real  christian, — in  respect  to  happiness 
in  this  life,  and  till  he  sees  these  men  equally  zealous  to  pro- 
mote the  happiness  of  their  fellow-men  in  this  life,  by  all  oth- 
er appropriate  means  ?  For  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  this 
class  of  men  will  fight,  and  rage,  and  issue  their  slanders  and 
scurrility  against  us,  purely  to  bring  us  the  comforts  of  their 
doctrine  in  this  life,  when  this  is  the  only  comfort  they  are 
zealous  to  impart  to  the  needy.  Nay,  in  nine  cases  out  often, 
the  real  reason  of  that  zeal  for  disputation  for  which  Univer- 
salists, above  all  other  religionists,  are  distinguished,  is  a  want 
of  a  satisfactory  conviction  of  the  truth  of  their  own  system. 
"  They  have  not  the  tranquillity  of  innocence,  the  confidence 
of  truth,  and  they  feel  themselves  strongly  fortified,  secure  and 
fearless,  in  proportion  as  they  have  swelled  their  confederacy, 
extinguished  the  conviction,  and  put  out  the  light  of  faith  in 
others  ;  which  is  a  condemning  light  to  them,  and  holds  out  to 
them  a  fearful  misgiving  in  the  prospect  of  eternity.  They 
fear  that  the  foundations  they  are  resting  on  may  prove  inse- 
cure, they  wish  therefore  to  be  strengthened  by  the  co-operation 
of  others,  and  feel  a  guilty  satisfaction,  in  proportion  as  they 
multiply  disciples  among  their  associates,  and  are  thus  en- 
abled to  hear  an  echo  in  every  voice,  and  see  the  reflection  of 
Universalism  in  every  breast.  They  feel  their  fears  allayed, 
their  perturbation  subside,  in  proportion  as  they  swell  their 
numbers  by  extensive  confederation  ;  they  are  deceiving  and 
being  deceived."  Here  is  the  moving  principle  of  no  small 
part  of  that  machinery,  which  is  at  work  to  proselyte  men  to 
Universalism.  Were  it  not  for  the  fears  and  misgivings  of 
Universalists  themselves,  there  would  be  little  motive  for  ex- 
ertion in  such  a  cause.  Were  it  not  for  these  fears,  the  men 
who  pretend  to  know  that  there  is  no  danger  to  any,  do  what 
they  will,  and  believe  what  they  will,  would  for  consistency's 
sake  be  silent,  and  let  all  men  choose  among  diflTerent  creeds — 
which,  according  to  their  principles  must  all  be  equally  safe. 


240  SOURCES  OF  UNIVERSALISM. 

If  there  were  no  opposition  to  Universalism,  no  preaching  of 
future  judgment,  no  christian  examples  to  alarm  the  conscience 
of  the  ungodly,  no  books  nor  conversation  calculated  to  dis- 
turb the  quiet  of  the  Universalist,  that  is  if  the  whole  world  was 
content  to  make  no  resistance  to  their  doctrine,  all  Univer- 
salist preaching  would  cease.  For  then  there  would  be  little 
to  disturb  the  mind,  and  awake  their  doubts,  and  create  occa- 
sion for  proselyting. 

The  facilities  which  the  apostles  of  Universalism  now  have, 
for  access  to  the  minds  of  the  young,  the  ignorant,  and  tiiose 
susceptible  of  being  influenced  by  them,  are  unlimited.  The 
facilities  for  the  circulation  of  thought,  through  the  press,  have 
within  a  few  years  greatly  increased.  Tho  tract  system, 
though  it  is  employed  for  purposes  of  amazing  good,  as  well  as 
evil,  was  invented  by  infidels,  as  a  machine  for  the  wide  sub- 
version of  the  immortal  hopes  of  men,  and  is  now  used  effect- 
ually to  propagate  Infidelity  and  Universalism.  A  man  of  lit- 
tle reading  and  less  thought,  can  be  induced  to  give  his  atten- 
tion to  a  Universalist  tract,  when  he  would  be  inaccessible  to 
any  other  influence.  In  this  way  the  doses  of  the  poison  are 
accom.modated  to  the  weakest  capacity,  and  the  wonderful  sub- 
limation of  reason,  and  nobleness  of  thought,  which  consists  in 
being  freed  from  the  shackles  of  a  belief  in  a  judgment  to  come,is 
attainable  by  the  merest  simpleton.  Tlie  newspaper  too  is,if  pos- 
sible, a  more  convenient  and  efficient  vehicle  of  error,  as  well 
as  truth,  to  minds  of  limited  capacities  and  opportunities.  And 
there  are  not  wanting  Universalist  Journalists  to  pander  to  the 
appetite  for  flesh — pleasing  doctrines,  and  to  descend  to  the 
grossest  expedients  for  captivating  gross  and  degraded  minds. 
Both  in  the  newspapers  and  the  tracts  to  which  I  allude,  there 
is  a  studied  adaptation  to  a  class  of  men,  that  have  a  relish  for 
blackguardism,  an  industrious  catering  to  prejudices  and  pas- 
sions of  ignorant  and  stagnant  minds — a  ringing  of  changes 
upon  such  words  as  "priestcraft,"  "church  and  state,"  and  the 
like,  a  dealing  in  gross  personalities,  and  attacks  upon  private 
character,  in  distorted  narrations  of  real  facts,  and  in  down- 
right falsehoods.     Now  all  this,  while  it  tends  to  disgust  well 


.       SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM.  241 

informed  and  impartial  minds,  takes  a  powerful  hold  of  those 
that  are  low  and  vitiated  enough  to  be  influenced  by  it.  And 
then  this  kind  of  publications,  like  a  certain  quadruped,  whose 
defence  lies  in  his  power  of  casting  about  him  an  offensive 
smell,  is  below  responsibility.  Decent  men  are  unwilling  to 
come  in  contact  with  such  filtrations  from  the  dregs  of  degra- 
ded minds  ;  and  in  most  cases  it  is  advisable  to  suffer,  and  see 
the  truth  suffer  all  that  can  be  inflicted  through  such  organs, 
rather  than  defile  it  with  the  touch  of  such  scurrility.  As  Mi- 
chael is  said  not  to  have  brought  a  railing  accusation  against 
the  devil,  because  the  devil  was  more  used  to  railing  than  he, 
and  because  the  devil  was  sure  to  have  the  last  word,  so  a  dis- 
creet man  will  usually  refrain  from -making  answer  to  such 
products  of  defiled  tempers;  on  the  ground  that  truth  is  sure 
to  be  injured  while  defending  itself  on  a  level  with  such  base- 
ness. This  circumstance  gives  the  Universalists  the  advan- 
tage of  operating  undisturbed  in-a  certain  sphere,  and  of  ply- 
ing to  mudi  eflect  a  favorite  weapon  of  theirs. 

Then  there  are  Universalist  publications  of  a  more  elevated 
character,  less  liable  to  these  objections — such  for  instance  as 
those  of  Mr.  B.  which  come  in  such  a  form  as  not  to  be  very 
attractive  to  the  controversialist :  and  that  for  other  reasons 
than  any  difficulty  of  replying  to  the  arguments.  The  labor 
of  exposing  sophistry  after  sophistry,  and  going  through  vol- 
umes of  arguments  too  frivolous  to  need  an  answer,  were  itnot 
that  they  would  have  an  effect  on  ignorant  minds  if  left  un- 
noticed, is  not  very  inviting.  A  man  must,  to  say  the  least, 
be  led  to  the  undertaking  by  other  motives  than  an  ambi- 
tion to  make  a  display  of  his  reasoning  talents,  or  the  am- 
bition of  having  the  last  word,  to  induce  him  to  encounter  such 
opponents.  He  must  make  up  his  mind  to  employ  himself  pa- 
tiently in  following  out,  and  exposing  multiplied  perversions 
of  the  truth,  and  when  he  has  done  it  to  have  his  own  work 
perverted,  and  subjected  to  the  same  kind  of  sophistical  treat- 
ment, which  he  has  labored  to  expose.  For  those  who  are  ca- 
pable of  putting  such  crooked  interpretations  upon  the  word  of 
God,  are  equally  capable  of  perverting  the  reasonings  of  men. 


242  SOURCES  OP  UNIVERSALISM. 

If  they  call  the  master  of  the  house  Beelzebub,  liow  much 
more  those  of  his  honsehould.  This  fact  operates  as  a  kind  of 
protection  to  Universalist  writers,  while  diffusing-  their  poison 
through  the  community.  By  reason  of  this  fact,  together  with 
the  impression  that  many  have,  that  errors  so  gross  need  no 
refutation,  it  comes  to  pass  that  while  there  are  ten  writers 
found  to  oppose  errors  of  less  magnitude,  there  is  scarcely  one 
who  is  willing  to  contend  with  this.  Some  indeed  have  the 
impression  that  it  is  all  of  no  avail — that  Universalists  really 
do  not  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  influenced  by  any  arguments  drawn  from  them. 
How  far  this  impression  is  founded  in  fact,  I  pretend  not  to 
say.  That  it  extensively  exists  among  orthodox  ministers, 
I  know.  Others  are  kept  back  from  discussions  v,-ith  those 
men,  on  the  ground  that  every  argument  with  them,  whether 
successful  or  not,  tends  to  increase  the  circulation  of  their 
books,  which  from  the  adaptation  of  their  doctrines  to  deprav- 
ed minds,  have  only  to  be  read  by  minds  of  a  certain  stamp,  in 
order  to  secure  belief.  And  then  in  moift  cases,  the  authors  of 
these  Universalist  books,  are  also  proprietors,  and  derive  a  pe-* 
cuniary  profit  from  anything  that  helps  their  circulation,  and 
can  even  afford  to  have  their  arguments  refuted,  since  the  re- 
futation puts  money  in  their  pockets.  Now  though  all  these 
reasons  are  not  sufficient  to  justify  silence  in  all  cases,  they 
have  had  their  influence,  to  shield  these  writers  from  many  a 
flagellation,  which  otherwise  they  would  have  received. 

Universalist  publications,  having  this  adaptation  of  char- 
acter, have  in  these  days  great  facilites  for  wide  diffusion. 
More  influence  and  interest  are  now  brought  to  bear,  to  con- 
vey religious  impression  to  the  minds  of  the  young,  and  the 
old,  than  in  former  times.  And  the  good  seed  is  not  scattered 
with  a  more  diligent  hand,  than  the  enemy  employs  in  sowing 
the  tares.  The  religious  world  has  become  the  theatre  of 
great  bustle  and  conflict.  Michnel  and  his  angels  fight,  and  the 
dragon  and  his  angels.  Vast  resources  of  learning  and  tal- 
ent are  in  requisition  both  for  and  against  the  truth.  Such  fa- 
cilities are  had  for  the  rapid  transmission  of  thought,  forcircu- 


SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM.  243 

lating  both  the  poison  and  its  remedies,  that  every  train  of 
thought  wliich  a  man  can  put  in  motion,  of  sufficient  power  to 
gain  a  hearing,  goes  on  the  wings  of  the  wind  from  Dan  to 
Beersheba.  A  man  of  powerful  intellect,  be  his  purpose  good 
or  bad,  has  only  to  speak  and  he  has  a  nation  before  him  to 
hear.  And  such  is  the  interest  to  get  a  hearing  both  for  the 
truth  and  against  it,  that  every  adaptation  of  mode  is  resorted 
to,  and  every  tiling  that  has  intellect  is  called  upon  to  hear,  to 
read,  and  to  take  a  stand  in  relation  to  the  grave  matters  of  re- 
ligion. xMinisters,  the  religious  and  irreligious,  christians  and 
infidels,  are  busy  in  their  appropriate  work.  The  fire-side,  the 
work-shop,  the  farm  and  the  counting-room,  are  made  the 
scenes  of  religious  reading  and  debate.  In  this  state  of  thino-s 
univer'salist  tracts  and  nevvspapers'find  their  way  into  every 
nook  and  corner,  Avhere  there  is  intellect  enough  to  entertain 
them.  And  many  minds  are  so  balanced,  as  greedilv  to  de- 
vour the  poison,  and  reject  the  antidote.  And  the  result  is 
that  while  the  number  of  the  real  friends  of  truth  are  increas- 
ed, the  number  of  its  decided  enemies  are  multiplied. 

There  are  many  minds  so  loosely  balanced,  a-nd  ill-inform- 
ed, that  one  of  the  most  trival  objections  to  the  truth  is 
enough  to  upset  all  its  belief.  Suppose  a  man  of  some  little 
cunning,  come  in  contact  with  a  young  man,  who  has  never 
doubted  of  a  judgment  to  come,  and  has  never  examined  and 
known  on  what  a  broad  and  solid  basis  it  rests,  and  suppose  he 
start  one  of  the  favorite  objections  of  the  Universalists.  He 
kno-ws  not  how  to  meet  it,  since  he  is  ignorant  of  the  whole 
field  of  positive  proof,  and  he  knows  not  but  that  this  one  idea 
covers  the  whole  ground.  He  dwells  upon  it — thinks  there  is 
mighty  reason  in  it — his  little  mind  begins  to  bloat  with  the 
imagined  compass  of  it,  and  to  count,  himself  happy  for  havino- 
hit  upon  it,  and  to  wonder  why  the  world  has  overlooked  it 
so  long,  and  why  so  many  overlook  it  now.  Thus  a  suggest- 
ion that  would  not  have  the  weight  of  a  feather,  with  a  mind 
acquainted  with  the  whole  subject,  gives  a  fatal  turn  to  his  con- 
clusions. Advantage  has  been  taken  of  his  ignorance,  and  his 
prepossessions  secured  in  favor  of  Universalism.     One  little 


244  SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM. 

paltry  quibble,  has  opened  a  new  and  disastrous  era  in  the  his- 
tory  of  an  immortal  being  ! 

This  result  is  often  facilitated  by  the  pride  of  reason,  which  is 
characteristic  of  the  youthful  mind.  There  is  no  man  wiser  in ' 
his  own  conceit,  than  is  many  a  boy  of  fifteen  years.  And 
there  is  no  soil  more  fit  for  Universalist  cultivation,  than  that 
composed  of  ignorance  and  self-conceit.  Seest  thou  a  man 
wise  in  his  own  conceit,  there  is  more  hope  of  a  fool  than  of 
him.  As  soon  as  the  suggestion  that  there  is  no  judgment  be- 
gins to  Avork,  the  pride  of  reason  begins  to  be  flattered.  The 
stripplihg  sophister  imagines  himself  elevated  head  and  shoul- 
ders, above  all  around  him,  and  freed  by  one  noble  leap  from 
a  thousand  vulgar  superstitions.  He  begins  to  swell  with  self- 
complacency,  and  to  look  <]own  upon  the  littleness  of  a  world, 
that  is  weak  enough  to  believe  the  Bible.  In  the  dizziness  of 
his  elevation  he  seernsto  be  floating  in  a  flood  of  wisdom. 

And  then  the  strength  of  youthful  passion  goes  to  confirm 
the  delusion.  He  finds  that  he  has  acquired  a  new  and  much 
desired  liberty.  That  wonderful  argument  has  cut  him  loose 
from  a  thousand  grievous  restraints.  He  stands  relieved  from 
the  thought  of  a  final  judgment,  and  eternal  retributions,  and 
a  thousand  remonstrances  of  his  conscience  are  silenced.  A 
thousand  impulses  of  his  heart  come  up  Avith  their  congratula- 
tions, and  bless  him  for  the  change,  and  whisper — Rejoice,  O 
young  man  in  thy  youth,  and  let  thy  heart  cheer  thee  in  the 
days  of  thy  youth,  and  walk  in  the  way  of  thine  heart,  and  in 
the  sight  of  thine  eyes,  and  still  be  assured  that  for  all  this 
God  will  not  bring  you  into  judgment.  And  this  freedom  from 
restraint,  once  acquired,  will  not  be  easily  surrendered.  The 
mind  will  be  slow  to  listen  again  to  any  reasons  which  go  to 
replace  the  dominion  of  a  religious  belief  over  it.  And  all  the 
force  which  corrupt  passions  acquire  by  indulgence,  will  be  so 
much  accumulated  resistance  to  reason  and  the  word  of  God. 

Ridicule  is  also  an  efficient  means  for  making  proselytes  to 
Universalism.  It  is  easier  to  frame  a  sneer  than  a  solid  argu- 
ment, and  it  is  easier  for  a  weak  mind  to  feel  its  force.  The 
young  and  the  unreflecting  are  peculiarly  sensitive  to  the  force 


SOURCES    OF    UNIVERSALISM.  245 

of  ridicule.  And  rarely  have  they  such  attachments  to  relig- 
ious truth,  unless  under  the  influence  of  the  special  grace  of 
God,  that  they  cannot  be  laughed  out  of  them.  And  when  it 
is  considered  that  Universalist  writers  have  usually  been  more 
^distinguished  for  talents  at  this  kind  of  argumentation  than  for 
any  other — that  their  books  and  pamphlets  and  periodicals 
abound  in  efforts  to  take  advantage  of  this  weakness  of  human 
nature,  that  almost  all  the  leaders  of  petty  universalist  clubs 
in  villages  and  neighborhoods,  are  more  accustomed  to  black- 
guard than  sober  thought,  it  'vill  be  regarded  as  a  wonder, 
that  the  mischief  is  not  more  extensive  than  it  is. 

In  short  were  it  possible  to  collect  into  one  view  all  the 
causes  that  are  operating,  and  all  the  advantages  under  which 
they  operate,  with  all  their  details  in  full,  to  make  the  present 
and  the  rising  generation  a  generation  of  Universalists — could 
we  picture  out  the  multi-form  exposedness  of  the  youthful  mind 
to  corrupting  influences,  from  without  and  from  within — the 
frequent  and  easy  access  which  these  influences  have  to  the 
mass  of  mind — with  what  ominous  abundance  the  press  is 
pouring  out  the  destructive  lava,  and  in  how  many  streams 
distributing  it  over  the  face  of  the  country — as  if  a  new  volca- 
no had  been  uncapped,  belching  out  the  very  elements  of  the 
under  world — it  would  be  no  matter  of  wonder,  that  so  many 
are  found  to  embrace  Universalism. 

How  great  is  the  responsibility  of  him,  who  is  the  instru- 
ment of  perverting  on  e  mind  from  the  right  way,  and  inclining 
it  to  this  error !  If  a  new  planet  should  be  seen  coming  from 
nothing  into  a  splendid  existence  before  our  eyes,  destined  to 
take  its  course  with  the  rest  till  the  end  of  time,  we  should  be 
the  spectators  of  a  great  and  important  event.  But  with  how- 
much  more  solicitude  should  we  watch  the  opening  character 
of  a  rational  mind,  while  with  tremulous  vibrations,  like  the 
compass  needle,  it  is  shifting  hither  and  thither  to  find  the  line 
of  attraction  !  Because  the  being  of  this  mind  will  have  but 
just  commenced,  when  the  planets  have  ceased  to  resolve. 
But  if  this  new  born  planet  should  be  near  us  in  its  orbit,  and 
we  could  see  it  to  be  the  glad  abode  of  life  and  intelligence — 


;  16  SOURCES   OF  UNIV  ERSALISM. 

could  see  the  richness  of  its  scenery  and  the  bustle  of 'its  pop- 
ulation— and  were  Ave  to  reflect  that  not  only  such  a  planet, 
but  such  a  world,  so  furnished  and  peopled  and  destined  to 
stand  through  so  many  ages,  had  leaped  into  existence  before 
us,  the  thought  would  be  unmeasurable.  But  there  is  the  gernij^ 
of  more  life,  intelligence  and  capability  of  weal  or  woe,  in  that  . 
youth,  that  is  sporting  round  tlie  entrance  to  destructions  slip- 
pery way,  than  could  be  crowded  upon  such  a  planet,  for  any 
limited  time.  Suppose  further,  that  the  destinies  of  this  new 
born  planet  were  capable  of  being  touched  by  influences  from 
earth — that  human  agencies,  concentrated  and  sent  out  upon 
it,  before  it  had  found  its  permanent  orbit  could  sway  it  hither 
and  thither,  and  determine  whether  it  were  to  fill  its  ernor- 
mous  periods,  amid  summer  influences,  or  in  abodes  of  eternal 
frost — what  responsibility  untold  would  be  connected  with 
those  human  agencies!  But  he  that  should  cause  such  a  world 
to  shoot  off  into  the  regions  of  frost  and  desolation,  would  not 
equal  the  mischiefs  done  by  him,  who  is  the  means  of  giving  a 
fatal  direction  to  an  immortal  mind,  and  in  fixing  the  orbit  in 
which  it  is  to  perform  its  endless  and  disastrous  revolutions. 

Then  it  must  be  remembered,  that  the  mischievous  conse- 
quences of  error  are  cumulative.  Human  minds  are  so  linked 
together  in  this  world,  that  we  can  set  no  bounds  to  the  trans- 
mission of  sentiments,  characters  and  dispositions,  from  one  to 
another.  And  he  who  lodges  corrupt  sentiments  in  the  mind 
of  his  neighbor,  kindles  a  fire  which  will  burn  and  spread,  he 
knows  not  hoAv  far.  This  one  person  corrupted,  communicates 
the  poison  to  his  connexions,  and  they  to  theirs,  and  thus  it 
may  go  on  to  increase,  from  generation  to  generation.  So  this 
one  mind  corrupted,  may  become  the  center  of  a  vortex,  which 
shall  draw  into  itself  millions  of  immortal  men.  Such  wide 
and  wasting  ruin  may  be  the  extended  result  of  one  conver- 
sion to  the  Universalist  delusion.  But  if  the  value  of  one  soul 
so  surpasses  that  of  a  world,  who  can  estimate  the  mischief 
done  by  those  who  put  in  motion  such  whirlpools  of  destruc- 
And  how  will  the  authors  of  all  this  mischiet  stand  aghast  at 
the  sight  of  their  own  work  in  the  judgment  day!  And  with 


SOUllCES   OF  UNI  VERS  ALISM.  247 

what  greetings  must  they  meet  the  .wretched  victims  of  their 
del-usion,  to  go  with  them  to  their  abode  in  the  under  world  I 
If  there  be  a  hell,  and  if  Universalism  be  what  I  humbly  con- 
ceive I  iiave  proved  it  to  be,  I  am  authorized,  and  I  feel  con- 
strained, as  I  take  my  leave  of  this  subject,  and  that  with  no 
unkindness,  to  address  the  hierophants  of  the  system  in  the 
words  of  Paul  to  the  sorcerer  (whose  profession  by  the  way 
must  have  been  harmless  by  the  side  of  theirs)  O  full  of  all 

SUBTILTY  AND  ALL  MISCHIEF,  THOU  CHILD  OF  THE  DEVIL, 
THOU  ENEMY  OF  ALL  RIGHTEOUSNESS,   WILT   THOU   ^OT 

CEASE  TO  PERVERT  THE  RIGHT  WAYS  OF  THE  LoRD  ? 


ERRATA. 

Page  18,  beginning  of  2  paragraph  for  third,  read  '■'  second."  P. 
31,  line  10  from  the  bottom,  insert  it  after  introduced,  P.  34,  line 
20  from  the  top.  for  //"read  "  unless."  P.  39,  line  11  after  conse- 
quc7ucs,  insert,  "  of  sin."  P.  58,  line  8  from  the  bottom,  blot  out 
the.  P.  78,  line  7,  blot  out  hut.  P.  82,  for  house  of  David,  read 
"house  of  Jacob."  P.  93,  line  15  from  the  bottom,  after  hell,  in- 
sert "  of."  P.  100,  line  5  from  bottom,  for  ercnt,  read  ''  events." 
P.  106,  line  19  from  the  top  after  dead,  insert  "in  Christ."  P. 
113,  line  17  from  the  top,  for  idea,  read  "  ideas."  P.  124,  last  line 
for  tucks,  read  "tacks."  P.  129,'line  13,  for  Mr.  B.  read  "Mr. 
W."  P.  137,  line  21,  for  susjyected,  read  "  expected."  P.  140, 
line  7  from  the  bottom,  for  he,  read  "  Christ."  P.  142,  line  2,  for 
the.  read  *'  their."  P.  153,  line  7,  blot  out  place  of.  P.  154.  line 
24,' for  16,  read  "  20."  P.  168,  line  6  for  uses  read  "  use."  P.'  175, 
the  first  division  of  paragraplis  misplaced.  P.  177,  line  14  from 
the  bottom,  place  a  period  after  exhibited,  and  blot  it  after  quoted, 
and  insert  a  dash  ;  and  for  in  read  "In."  P.  179,  line  7  from  the 
bottom,  for /,/iC5e  read  "there."  P.  148,  line  1,  for  it  rend  "is." 
P.  187,  line  7  from  the  bottom  in  the  note  for  taking,  read  "take." 
P.  191,  line  14  from  the  top  for  is  read  "are."  P.  193,  line  7,  for 
mea.ns,  icad  "  mean,"  and  line  23,  for  langurge  read  "  language  " 
and  4  line  from  the  bottom,  for  ez/s/5  read  "exist."  P.  194,  line 
12  from  the  bottom  for  When  read  "  Whence.''  P.  205,  line  8  for 
avoided  read  "  avowed." 


